Laserfiche WebLink
FAULT <br />A significant number of omissions in required monitoring and reporting occurred over a <br />period of a year. Apparently, repairs of non-functional monitoring wells have not been <br />done by the operator. The operator was aware of the monitoring requirements since <br />they had been in place for a number of years. A high degree of negligence is apparent <br />here. <br />Because of the difficulty of assessing hydrologic impacts of the mine with data from the <br />approved hydrologic monitoring plan, the Division asked the operator to submit a <br />revised monitoring plan in December, 1996. The operator responded in February, <br />1997. The Division notified the operator that the responses were inadequate, also in <br />February, 1997. The operator apparently never formally responded to the identified <br />inadequacies in their proposed submittal. In a December 5, 1997 letter, the operator <br />indicates that they understood the Division's original correspondence to be a request, <br />not a requirement, to revise the hydrology monitoring plan. There may have been a <br />misunderstanding about the need to revise the monitoring plan. However, the fact that <br />several of the requested changes have not been included in the approved permit a year <br />after deficiencies in the monitoring plan were identified seems to indicate a lack of <br />diligence on the operator's part. <br />Based on the degree and extent of negligence in conducting required hydrology <br />monitoring and, in light of the scope of potential hydrologic impacts of this operation <br />which are required to be monitored, $750 is assessed for negligence. <br />GOOD FAITH <br />This NOV has not been abated. Therefore, good faith is not relevant at this time. <br />120897 <br />