2017-07-13_ENFORCEMENT - M1999050

• Permit No: M1999050
• IBM Index Class Name: ENFORCEMENT
• Doc Date: 7/13/2017
• Doc Name: Consent Agenda Summary Form
• From: DRMS
• To: Kevin Anderson
• Email Name: JLE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

COLORADO
Division of Reclamation,
Mining and Safety
1313 She;maa Street Rc.; 215
Den`Yer, CO 802-13
STAFF SUMMARY FORM FOR
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Date June 28, 2017 Operator Connell Resources, Inc.
Permit No. M-1999-050 Site Name Timnath Connell Pit
Specialist Jared Ebert Objecting Party N/A
Action:
Possible violation pursuant to C.R.S. 34-32.5-124 and Construction Rule 1.15(1)(c)
Resolution:
Connell Resources, Inc. (Operator), concedes to the violation of Construction Materials Rule 1.15(1)(c),
for failure to provide monitoring information with the annual report as required under the approved
reclamation plan, and pursuant to C.R.S. 34.32.5.124,for failure to comply with the conditions of the
permit, and to the Cease and Desist Order, Corrective Actions, and Civil Penalties, provided herein,for
the Timnath Connell Pit, Permit No. M-1999-050.
Chronology:
May 15, 2017 DRMS cited a problem for delinquent groundwater reports and imposed a corrective
action deadline of June 19, 2017,to submit groundwater reports conducted after February 26, 2004,to
current time. At that time, DRMS records included groundwater reports from April 12, 1999 through
February 26, 2004.
June 19, 2017 Operator submitted groundwater reports from 1999 through 2006 and indicated
groundwater monitoring had ceased after 2006. The Operator further clarified two of the original nine
monitoring sites were no longer functional. The Operator proposed to conduct monthly monitoring at
the remaining seven wells and stated they would submit the results of the monitoring to the Division
with their annual report.
June 22, 2017 Reason To Believe a Violation Exists and Notice of Hearing(RTB) mailed to Operator
Reason for Violation:
With the approval of Technical Revision No. 1 in March of 2000,the Operator committed to conducting
groundwater level monitoring at the site. The monitoring plan was complex and had various trigger
points based on the phasing of the mining operation. The Operator committed to monitoring five
*1876 !,