1992-05-27_REVISION - M1988112

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 5/27/1992
• Doc Name: DRAFT SUBJECT TO BOARD APPROVAL
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Minutes, May 21-28, 19~ ~RA~ 18
Subject To Board Approval
Staff said the Division wets concerned that the operator maintain
responsibility for sampling and testing and that a redundant sampling
program not be established. Staff discussed this issue further with
the Board and the parties. Ms. Jacquez agreed that her clients had
requested that, at the operator's expense, they be provided with split
samples and analysis.
Mr. Frank Johnson clarified that issues related to this matter would be
addressed by the operator's submittal of a technical revision. A
protocol for monitoring and sampling will be developed, reviewed and
approved or denied by the Division. Mr. Johnson further stated that a
public comment period would be included as part of the technical
revision process.
Ms. Jane Kircher briefly addressed the Board, regarding the technical
revision process.
In addressing specific issues raised by Ms. Jacquez, the Board
clarified that September 13, 1991 was established as the beginning date
of the violation, because evidence presented indicated that a problem
existed on that date. Regarding the issue of monitoring, the Board
suggested that this matter be addressed and resolved between the
Division, operator and the parties. It was noted that if adopted, the
Order would require independent monitoring (proposal submitted for
change to independent sampling and analysis) by the operator. It was
noted that the violation in question relates specifically to an issue
of water quality.
Mr. Massey stated that the operator would not object to the Finding of
Fact reflecting that the parties requested monitoring. However, he
said an objection would be raised, if the Order is adopted and requires
monitoring other than for water quality.
It was MOVED that the Board amend the Notice of Violation and Order to
reflect the addition of Jane I. Kircher (Item 20(b)) as a party; Item
13--the word "water" in the first line and the phrase "water quality"
in the third line be deleted; Item 20(b)--the phrase "to all parties by
all parties" be added to the second sentence after the word
"submitted"; Item 21(c)--the phrase "...monitoring every two weeks" be
replaced by the phrase "...sampling and analyses by a third party at
BMRI's expense at a frequency to be determined by the Mined Land
Reclamation Division to verify pertinent data". SECONDED.
The Board discussed other possibilities for amending the Order, as well
as the third-party selection process.
The Motion FAILED 2 for (Kraeger-Rovey and Cattany); 3 against
(Jouflas, Stewart and Danni); 1 abstention (Cooley); Danielson not
present for the vote.
Staff stated that the document attached to the proposed order was not
the correct, amended document. Frank Johnson suggested that he obtain
the correct attachment, make necessary amendments and present the order
to the Board later during this Meeting.