Laserfiche WebLink
liv) the laboratory analysis for the samples submitted did not include testing for <br />a full suite of parameters as required. <br />6, failed to appropriately sample and analyze surtace water and groundwater for the first and <br />second quarter of 1993 from the four locations identified in the permit, in that: <br />(il the Engleville Mine discharge had been diverted into the USGS well; <br />(ii) the Montoya Dug well was not sampled; <br />(iii) field parameters of the water samples were not obtained; <br />(iv) the laboratory analysis for the samples submitted lacked testing for chlorine <br />and boron. <br />5. An assessment conference was held on August 10, 1993, at which this matter was heard, but at which <br />the issues were considered not to have been resolved, as the permittee chose not to sign the associated <br />assessment conference settlement agreement. <br />6. A Notice and Order to pay Fixed Penalty was sent to the permittee on September 3, 1993, reflecting <br />the following assessments: <br />a. History S 100.00 <br />b. Seriousness 750.D0 <br />c. fault 750.00 <br />d. Good Faith Reduction 0.00 <br />Total 1 6 <br />7. The Division cited in the Penalty Assessment under "Seriousness" that "failure to properly monitor <br />water quality impedes the Division's ability to assess mine impacts. The missing data were for a <br />relatively short period of time." <br />8. The Division cited in the Penalty Assessment under "Fault" that "while not intentional, the cited <br />omissions involve considerable negligence. The water quality sampling plan is not complex, and the <br />permit documents which outline the plan seem extremely clear." <br />9. Landmark did not contest the facts of the violation, but stated that Landmark had attempted to comp:: <br />with the approved sampling program, by: <br />a. obtaining samples from the commingled USGS well, the Windmill well (rather than the <br />Montoya Dug well) and the Hole 29.4 well; <br />b. submitting the samples for analysis. <br />As such, Landmark requested the penalty assessments for 'Fault" should be reduced. <br />10. Landmark further stated that it believed the samples obtained from the unapproved Windmill weal v <br />indicative of the groundwater from the approved Montoya Dug well, as landmark believed t;,. <br />wells were completed in the same aquifer, and, as such, the level of 'Seriousness" should be rc' <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />Pursuant to the authority vested in the Board by C.R.S. 34-33-101 et seq. and Sections 5.04 4 <br />Board hereby concludes that: <br />