ENFORCE23254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Seriousness The proposed penalty stated, "No evidence of immediate environmental harm, however failure to monitor impedes the DMG ability to assess environmental impacts". Empire has conducted quarterly monitoring since mining began in the E-seam (1990), with the exception of the fourth quarter 1994. Results of the monitoring reflect the predictions made in the permit. Nothing unusual has occurred. Furthermore, the April, 1990 monitoring plan stated that monitoring would not be necessary after mining ceased in the 2E panel. They started the 3E panel in Auqust, 1993. They do not intend to stop, however until they have approval from the Division. Based on the information presented in the conference I feel the seriousness is low. There is a solid history of monitoring data with no indication of a problem. I propose to reduce this to $250.00. Fault The assessment officer stated "This factor is difficult to assess; however, the statement regarding snowcover may be a willful attempt to cover missed monitoring. Whether the actual monitoring omission was willful or negligent is not clear. This factor should receive detailed scrutiny in the conference". Ms. Binns was not aware of the April, 1990 letter before the conference. The monitoring plan in the permit is very broad and makes no mention of "adverse weather conditions" ,as a monitoring exemption. All parties at the conference agreed that the permit should be revised to include the plan. She agreed with Empire's assessment that no unusual impacts have been reported. Empire representatives explained that the third quarter data was collected in late September. In order to obtain tmeaningful data they wanted to wait at least a month before the n~axt reading. However, their attempts in November and December Caere unsuccessful. They added that data for the first and second quarters of 1994 have already been collected. In hindsight, Empire representatives felt they should have explained what the adverse conditions were that prevented the monitoring and they should have contacted the Division after their unsuccessful attempts to obtain the fourth quarter data. They agreed they were negligent in this respect, but there was no intention on their part to skip the monitoring. Based on the information presented in the conference 1 propose to reduce fault to $500.00 for negligence. There is no evidence of a willful attempt not to conduct the monitoring.