ENFORCE25752 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-93-147 Assessment Conference Summary Nov C-93-147 was issued by Steve Shuey of the Division on November 10, 1993 for failure to conduct hydrologic monitoring as required by Permit C-81-038 pursuant to Rule 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv). The NOV was issued based on Kent Gorham's review of Cyprus Orchard Valley Coal Company's (COVCC) 1992 Annual Hydrologic Report for the Cyprus Orchard Valley Mine. Mr. Gorham's November 3, 1993 memorandum documents numerous surface water and ground water sites which were not monitored in compliance with the approved plan. Mr. Gorham explained that, based on his review, numerous sites weie missing data for up to three months for which data was required. He indicated that, based on his knowledge of the site and data from previous years reports, he considered it unlikely that significant impacts were missed as a result of the monitoring omissions. In his opinion, the most significant failing was the fact that a number of springs which typically flow only during April or May were not visited during those months, and other spring sites were sampled with insufficient frequency. As a result, the Division's ability to evaluate seasonal fluctuations was impaired. Mr. Koehler contended that many of the monitoring sites were located far from active mining areas, and had been monitored for many years with no discernible impacts. He further indicated that he had discussed this fact with the Division on prior occaisions and the Division had agreed that it might be appropriate for the monitoring program to be scaled down. Mr. Gorham agreed that this was the case, and that the Division had indicated that a revision to the permit which would reduce the number of monitoring sites and/or the frequency of monitoring would probably be appropriate. Mr. Koehler explained that due to a number of high priority operational, permitting, and enforcement related projects during 1992, the company was forced to prioritize the monitoring, and those sites which were of low concern were in many cases not monitored at the frequency required by the permit. Mr. Koehler acknowledged that CoVCC was at fault for not appropriately revising the permit prior to modifying the monitoring schedule. Fact of violation The operator did not contest the fact of the violation. I find that the violation was appropriately issued.