Laserfiche WebLink
Interoffice <br />MEMORANDUM <br />to: Ron Cattany <br />from: Kent Gorham ~~ <br />subject: CV-2002-010, New Elk Mine, #C-81-012 <br />date: July 24, 2002 <br />Please find attached a letter from Greystone Environmental Consultants (Exhibit A) and a copy of the <br />hydrologic monitoring plan (Exhibit B) for the New Elk Mine regarding Notice of Violation CV-2002-010 <br />issued to Picketwire Processing, LLC. The operator has requested vacation of two of four points of the <br />violation that was issued this month for failure to conduct hydrologic monitoring in accordance with the <br />approved plan. <br />The operator addresses four points in the information provided. They do not challenge points #1 and #3. <br />They do however challenge points #2 and #4. Basically, the operator refers to changes made during <br />Technical Revision No. 43 (TR-43) in April 1999. Please refer to attached Exhibit B that details the <br />hydrologic monitoring frequency in currently in effect, in particular, the highlighted footnote at the bottom <br />of the page. The operator contends that the footnote allows them to continue on a reduced frequency of <br />hydrologic monitoring "until the preparation plant becomes active". The Division agrees the preparation <br />plant is not active at the present time. However, the site is currently in an "active" status and has been <br />since written notice was received by the Division on October 19, 2001. Prior to receipt of that letter, the <br />site was formally in "temporary cessation". During review of TR-43, the Division reviewed, and <br />considered, two hydrologic monitoring scenarios at the site; one during a time that the site was in <br />temporary cessation and one during the time the operation was in active status. As mentioned, the operator <br />provided written notice, received by the Division on October 19, 2001, that the site was returning to active <br />status. Therefore, the Division believes event triggering the return to the more frequent hydrologic <br />monitoring plan requirements occurred as of this date. Coal stockpiling and loading activities began in <br />October 2001 and continue at the present time. Maintenance has occurred at the Refuse Disposal Facility <br />and water has accumulated in the facility sediment pond due to dust control and operational activities. <br />Impacts to the hydrologic system are passible due to these activities, regardless of the whether the <br />preparation plant is operational or not. <br />The operator seems to contend that there are three levels of status regarding hydrologic monitoring rather <br />than two; (1) a lesser frequency during temporary cessation, (2) a lesser frequency during active status <br />when the preparation plant is not operating, and (3) an increased monitoring frequency during active status <br />when the preparation plant is operating. Thz Division believes the plan was designed and reviewed urdzr <br />the context of two levels of status regarding the hydrologic monitoring (1) a reduced frequency during the <br />period of temporary cessation and (2) an increased frequency when the mine returned to active status in <br />October 2001. <br />Based on the information supplied by the operator, the Division does not support vacation of points #2 and <br />#4 of this NOV. <br />CC: David Berrv <br />Dan Hernandez <br />