ENFORCE20651 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

x From the above summary, a pattern (mimimum of three violations resulting from separate inspections) could be found to exist for the 12 month period beginning November 25, 1996. The two violations resulting from separate inspections during the period beginning January 13, 1997, could also be found to constitute a pattern of violations, depending on consideration of all relevant circumstances. On April 30, 1997, you found that a pattern of violations existed for the 12 month period beginning March 28, 1996, but you declined to issue a show cause order, because of abatement measures which had been undertaken to resolve the noncompliant minewater discharges which had been cited in multiple violations and were the basis of the POV Finding. NOV's C-96-020 and C-97-OOI, included in the above summary of recent NOV's, had been included in the previous POV finding. Only two enforcement actions have been issued since the previous POV finding was issued; NOV C-97-O16 and CO-98-OOI. Both actions have been terminated, and the 5ne for NOV C-97-O1b has been paid. The proposed civil penalty for the cessation order was issued within the last couple weeks, and the penalty has not yet been fixed. I believe a pattern of violations does exist for the 12 month period beginning November 25, 1996, based on the two refuse area drainage control violations, which represent a violation of the same or related requirements on more than one occasion during a 12 month period. Further review of the enforcement record over the last 3 years would seem to indicate that the refuse area drainage control violations aze not isolated departures from lawful conduct. NOV C-95-001, which resulted from a January 11, 1995 inspection, involved inadequate maintenance of drainage control sttvctures on Refuse Area CRDA #1; NOV C-95-027, which resulted from a December 8, 1995 inspection was issued for failure to construct a segment of the CRDA #2 upper diversion ditch in compliance with the approved permit; NOV C-96-020 involved improper maintenance of refuse area drainage control structures on CRDA #2; and NOV C-97-016 involved drainage maintenance failures on CRDA #1 and CRDA #2, as well as certain ditch segments not constructed in compliance with permit specifications on CRDA #2. CO-98-001 was issued because certain refuse azea diversion segments had not been reconstructed to comply with approved designs within the specified abatement timeframe. In a more general sense, the violations cited in the above summary appear not to represent isolated departures from lawful conduct. In 1993, the operator was cited for three notices of violation during three separate inspections: in 1994, the operator was cited for two notices of violation resulting from sepazate inspections; in 1995, the operator was cited for three notices of violation during three sepazate inspections; in 1996, the operator was cited for two notices of violation resulting from separate inspections; and in 1997, the operator was cited for two notices of violation resulting from separate inspections. The Division has conducted required pattern of violation reviews in 1994, 1995, 1997, and now, in 1998. The number of violations on an annual basis is not extreme, and the violations have not been willfully caused by the permtttee, however there appears to be a continuing need for enforcement action at the mine on a fairly regular basis. My impression, having been the lead specialist at the site for the past three years, is that environmental compliance has not been made a high priority by mine management. The single individual responsible for mine permitting, reclamation, environmental compliance and