Laserfiche WebLink
-- i i ii i ii i ii iiii iii <br />~,~ <br />Notice of Violation C-94-016 <br />Written for "failure to conduct surface water monitoring in accordance with the approved <br />monitoring program submitted under 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv) and approved by the Division", and' failure <br />to collect flow data on Trout Creek at site TR-b for the month of June, 1994. <br />Cited Rule 4.05.13(2), Act Section 34-33-122(2), and Page 4.6-144, Table 4.6-54 of the permit. <br />Checked records at mine, noticed no June or July flow measurements taken at TR-b. Operator <br />said site was being reinstalled downstream, so he didn't take measurements at old site. I <br />informed the operator that this was in conflict with the approved permit. <br />History of the problem: <br />The Division identified deficiencies in P&M's performance of their approved monitoring <br />program in a letter dated August 16, 1990. We stated that we expected modification to the <br />monitoring program to "reestablish full compliance with the water monitoring program in 199P. <br />With the problem still uncorrected, the Division wrote a letter to P&M in July of 1992, <br />identified flow measurements at TR-b as having been inaccurate or missing, required P&M to <br />remedy the problem no later than November 14, 1992. <br />P&M submitted TR 20 in December of 1992, and it then took 11/z years to get it approved. <br />During this review time, we discussed, at length, the importance of obtaining accurate flow data <br />at TR-b. We also discussed the fact that the failure to obtain the required data would constitute <br />noncompliance. In that revision, P&M committed to obtaining consistently accurate flow data <br />at TR-b. This was to be accomplished, in part, by moving the station. The revision was finally <br />approved July 8, 1994. <br />Reasons for citation: <br />The approved monitoring plan calls for monthly monitoring of flow at TR-b from April through <br />October. <br />The operator did not noti the Division that the measurement was not taken until after the end <br />of June (during the July 2 th inspection.) If they knew they could not get flow data, they should <br />have notified the Division before the opportunity to collect June data had passed. <br />If the revision was approved July,8th, the monitoring station should not have been "in transition" <br />during the month of June. <br /> <br />