ENFORCE22868 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12/,10/99 THL~ 19:16 F,1.t ~ • 011 Accordingly, the MLItB should use its best professional judgement as to when the violation did indeed begin. V. Inadequate Corrective Action Plan Although BMRI has submitted a "Corrective Action Plan," such corrective action is not proposed to prevent the continued exceedences of the ground water protection levels. At best, the Plan proposes additional monitoring and limited pumping of some of the ground water (i.e., waters above the elevation of the springlseep in that vicinity). BMRI cannot maintain ithat all ground water impacted by the West Pit will not exceed the permit levels as a result of ti`re Plan. As noted in the DMG's "Presentation Form.," at p. 3, BMRI's Plan is orily "an initial and major step toward abating the violation." Tile DMG does not state that the Plan will abate the violation, only that it is a step towards abatement. Thus, since the violation is continuing. the b~ja''`,,~,tre, MLItB should inform BMRI that civil penalties will accrue for each day that pektnit levels aze y~,tt ~.4~ ~• ~ exceeded. .~-A"~t V~1 , The failure of the Corrective Action Plan to stop the violations is of seribus concern to ~' Iocal residents. Thus, the DMG and MLItB should require BMRI to develop aq actual corrective plan, not simply a plan to monitor the situation further. While such monitoring s to be supported, it does not fix the problem. Until BMRi can assure the public that ground ands ace waters are not being adversely affected by its operations. it is under a firm obligation to whatever measures are necessary to prevent such damage. Another issue that needs to be reviewed regards the direct and indirect a vrronmental impacts from implemrntation of the proposed Corrective action. For example, t~re Plan does not detail what adverse effects to the flow of the Rito Seco will result from the irate eption of some of the ground water curtrntly recharging the creek. Has the DMG consulted with a State Engineer's Office regarding possible impacts to downstream water rights holden? VI. Other Issues Raised by the DMG's Presentation Form The "Seriousness" section of the Presentation Form states that the pollution seep~e from the West Pit has not had any "offsite damage." The DMG offers no support for this positi n. [n fact, based on the company's data noted above, surface water quality downstream from the est Pit inflow has suffered a marked deterioration since mininghas ceased (e.g., manganese levels far about the 0.05 mg/1 standazd for the Rito Seco). Thus, the ML1tB must recognize that offsite damage has occur-ed and base its corrective action,' p y requirements and civil penalties accordingly. - l±+ ~ry