ENFORCE25601

• Permit No: C1981039
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Name: ENVELOPE
• Violation No.: CV0000000
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

-~ 1
~~
was

p
Docket No. IN 0-10-R
he pertinent portion of the regulation alleged to have been violated
ated by the respondent in its brief as follows:
round water levels, infiltration rates, subsurface flow and
torage characteristics, and the quality of ground water shall
e monitored in a manner approved by the regulatory authority
o determine the effects of surface coal mining and reclamation
Aerations on the recharge capacity of reclaimed lands and on the
uantity and quality of water in ground water systems at the mine
rea and in associated off-site areas.
Discussions, Findings and Conclusions ;
This appears to be a delegation of authority under the interim regulations
to, in this case, Che State of Ohio to approve or disapprove ground water
monitoring plans. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources by a memorandum
dated March 25, 1980 (Respondent's Exhibit B attached to its brief), required
a hydrologic plan for existing permits to be submitted to the Division of
Reclamation by June 2, 1980. The memorandum did not purport to supersede
Federal regulations.
That memorandum had been apparently proceeded by a memorandum denominated
"T A 0 Ik80 - 02" of January 28, 1980, which is Exhibit B to the applicant's
application for review. Page 2 of Applicant's Exhibit B intimates that certain
requirements had been given to the industry in July 1979.
IThe applicant argues that the ground water monitoring requirement was not
accompanied by specific requirements and that the delegation to the regulatory
authority included of necessity the establishment of a timetable For implementa-
I The respondent replied that the applicant was obliged to comply with the
interim regulations upon the issuance of its permit on April 3, 1978, or when
mining operations began in the fall of 1978.
It would appear from a reading of the comments at 42 FR 62656 (Dec. 13, 1977)
that these requirements were not regionalized throughout the nation and that
variations by the regulatory authority were authorized and considered appropriate.
While there is no doubt that the Ohio Division of Reclamation could not delay
the imposition of the interim regulations, I do not find that such is the case
but I find that the State of. Ohio was acting within the scope of delegation of
authority to it and that it is enforcing, in Eact, this portion of the regulations
as was intended,
Furthermore, I do not feel that Violation No. 4 of the subject notice of
violation states an offense under the section quoted, It must be pointed out
that, even when the remedial action has been performed which, according to the
- 2 -