ENFORCE24388 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-94-029 Notice of Violation C-94-029 was issued for "Failure to conduct spoil and spring monitoring as required by the approved permit". Kent Gorham issued the NOV to Colorado Yampa Coal Company for Mine 1, Mine 2 and Eckman Pazk permit. It was mailed from the office on October 18, 1994 based on a review of the 1993 Annual Hydrologic Report.. Mr. Gorham explained that the water year being reported in the report ran from October, 1992 through September, 1993. The AHR was due Mazch 31, 1944. This deadline was extended until May, 1994 because CYCC was in the process of developing a new hydrologic database. During Mr. Gorham's review of the AHR he noticed that several monitoring occurrences were missing. An adequacy letter was sent to CYCC in August, 1994 requesting that the missing information be submitted. In September, he talked to the environmental coordinator to discuss the missing data. CYCC submitted some of the missing data in October, 1994. This NOV was issued for the data that was not submitted. Specifically, Mr. Gorham cited nineteen occurrences including missing full suite analysis in May, 1993. at spoil springs O, Mine land M2-87. Quarterly field visits were missing at spoil springs A-2 (four visits), C-1 (four visits), C-2 (four visits), O (1 visit), Mine 1 (1 visit), C-I {1 visit) and M2-87 (1 visit). Mr. Gorham noted that the full suite analysis for M2-87 was faxed in October. Mr. Rick Mills, representing CYCC, was a little confused regarding which data was actually being cited. He brought in monitoring data for ten of the missing occurrences. He was under the impression that the data had been included with the original report. I extended the conference to allow Mr. Gorfiam and Mr. Mills a chance to establish which data was actually missing. There were eight missing sampling occurrences. They were: the March quarterly visit at A- 2, C-1 and C-2, the May full suite analysis at O and Mine 1, and the third quarter field parameters at O, Mine I and M2-87. The proposed civil penalty was:: History $0.00 Seriousness $500.00 Fault $750.00 Good Faith $0.00 Total $1250.00 Seriousness Eight monitoring occurrences were not conducted at six different spoil springs. There was one missing quarterly field sample from four of these springs. Two occurrences were lacking from spoil springs Oand Mine 1, the May full suite analysis and the third quarter field parameters. Of most concern to me is the lack of a full suite analysis at spoil springs O and Mine 1. Water quality data from the spoils aquifer is an important component in