ENFORCE29029 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12/1R/98 THU 18:18 FA% • f~J011 • Accordingly, the MLRB should use its best professional judgement as to when Ithc violation did indeed begin. V. Inadequate Corrective Action Plan Although BMRI has submitted a "Corrective Action Plan," such corrective action is not proposed to prevent the continued exceedences of the ground water protection 1 eels. At best, the Plan proposes additional monitoring and limited pumping of some of the ground water (i.e., waters above the elevation of the spring/seep in that vicinity). BMRI cannot maintain that all ground water impacted by the West Pit will not exceed the permit levels as a result of tt~e Plan. . As noted is the DMG's "Presentation Form," at p. 3, BMRI's Plan is onlyy "an initial and major step towazd abating the violation." the DMG does not state that the Plan~ill abate the violation, only that it is a step towards abatement. Thus, since the violation is ntinuing, the MLRB should inform BMRI that civil penalties will accrue for each day that p it levels aze exceeded. The failure of the Corective Action Plan to stop the violations is of serf s concern to local residents. Thus, the DMG and MLRB should require BMRI to develop an ctual corrective plan, not simply a plan to monitor the situation further. While such monitoring i~ to be supported, it does not fix the problem. Until BMRI can assure the public that ground and s>~ace waters are not being adversely affected by its operations. it is under a firm obligation to tak whatever measures are necessary to prevent such damage. Another issue that needs to be reviewed regards the direct and indirect en ironmental impacts from implementation of the proposed Corrective action. For example, a Plan does not detail what adverse effects to the flow of the Into Seco will result from the interc ption of some of the ground water currently recharging the creek. Has the DMG consulted with State Engineer's Office regarding possible impacts to downstream water rights holders? VI. Other Issues Raised by the DMG's Presentation Form The "Seriousness" section of the Presentation Form states that the pollution seep a from the West Pit has not had any "offsite damage." The DMG offers no support for this positi n. Lu fact, based on the company's data noted above, surface water quality downstream from the est Pit inflow has suffered a marked deterioration since mining has ceased (e.g., manganese lev Is far above the 0.05 mg/1 standazd for the Rito Seco). Thus, the MLRB must recognize that offsite damage has occurred and base its co>rective action requirements and civil penalties accordingly.