Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br />a <br />fill, and passage of all disturbed flow through a sediment pond or <br />treatment facility. The NOV was modified on 10/21/97, to include certain <br />additional diversion ditch locations which did not comply with approved <br />designs. <br />January 21, 1998 Inspection <br />CO-98-001 Failure to abate NOV C-97-016. Specifically, failure to comply with <br />Abatement Items #5 and #6, which required restoration of certain refuse <br />azea diversion ditch segments to approved design, and submittal of P.E. <br />certification for the specified ditch segments. <br />I find that a pattem of violations does exist for the l2 month period beginning November 25, <br />1996, based on the two refuse area drainage control violations, which represent a violation of the <br />same or related requirements on more than one occasion during a 1 Z month period. Further <br />review of the enforcement record over the last 3 years would seem to indicate that the refuse area <br />drainage control violations aze not isolated departures from lawful conduct. NOV C-95-OOI, <br />which resulted from a January 11, 1995 inspection, involved inadequate maintenance of drainage <br />control structures on Refuse Area CRDA #1; NOV C-95-027, which resulted from a December <br />8, 1995 inspection was issued for failure to construct a segment of the CRDA #2 upper diversion <br />ditch in compliance with the approved permit; NOV C-96-020 involved improper maintenance of <br />refuse azea drainage control structures on CRDA #2; and NOV C-97-O16 involved drainage <br />maintenance failures on CRDA #1 and CRDA #2, as well as certain ditch segments not <br />constructed in compliance with permit specifications on CRDA #2. CO-98-001 was issued <br />because certain refuse area diversion segments had not been reconstructed to comply with <br />approved designs within the specified abatement timeframe. <br />In a more general sense, the violations cited in the above summary appear not to represent <br />isolated departures from lawful conduct. In 1993, PCC was cited for three notices of violation <br />during three sepazate inspections; in 1994, PCC was cited for two notices of violation resulting <br />from separate inspections; in 1995, PCC was cited for three notices of violation during three <br />separate inspections; in 1996, PCC was cited for two notices of violation resulting from separate <br />inspections; and in 1997, PCC was cited for two notices of violation resulting from sepazate <br />inspections. The Division has previously conducted required pattem of violation reviews in <br />1994, 1995, and 1997, with a pattern found to exist in 1997. The number of violations on an <br />annual basis is not extreme, and the violations have not been willfully caused by the permittee, <br />however, [here appears to be a continuing need for enforcement action at the mine on a fairly <br />regular basis. <br />I am concerned that environmental compliance has not been made a high priority by mine <br />management. I am informed by my staff that the individual primarily responsible for mine <br />permitting, reclamation, environmental compliance and reporting, is also the chief mine engineer <br />and surveyor, and as such there are many conflicting demands on his time. Maintenance items <br />are often not addressed until after they have been repeatedly brought to the operator's attention <br />on multiple inspections. Work seldom seems to get done within specified timeframes, and <br />