ENFORCE32206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. xent Gcrham November 16, 1994 Page 22 In the interim, OOVOC has successfully proven to the Division, via 2824, that argyle justification existed for modifying the program to el;m;*+ate the majarity of the monitarirg required aryl thereby free resasces to focus on monitarirg and other ; ~c„nc of more immediate ocaroei-n. Dicing the asses~*+} oanference for the 1993 violation, the Division questioned OOVCC as to the status of the 1993 data collection effort aryl was infam~med that omissions had also ooc~ured in 1993 but to a lesser extent as compared to 1992. A civil penalty was subsequently levied and paid for the violation. If aa~g~ared to the revised monitoring rec~,;,,P„w.,tG established following the approval of 2824, the 1993 monitaring is in substantial conformance with and in one aspect far exceeds the reg,;*~*fi~ of the cnsrently approved rronitarirrg program. Of the 77 sites listed as having omissions in yes letter of the 17th, 51 c~nzrntly rec~>i*-P rro monitarirrg. the frequency of required monitaring at the 26 retaining sites has been drastically reduced in almost all instances. the majority of the remaining noted omissions at sites still rg~,irirg monitoring are frequency oriented aryl often involve locations which are located outside the zone of potential mine impacts given the extent of mining thrax)tr 1993. 7n those :instance, where water quality samples were omitted, extensive database 'information already existed. With the possible exception of the omitted water quality sample at SW05, the status of these locations with respect to mining operations retained unchanged throughout 1993. As compared to the aurently approved monitarirg program ~„*p~nts, a net of 139 additional field visits were ammn,rated dcsing 1993. A net of seven carrrently required water quality samples were omitted. Seven omitted shallow monitoring well samples cxs rently required (sites SM-5, SM-6, SM-7, SM-10, SM-11, trnd two SM-1) were offset by seven additional shallow monitaring well samples collected during 1993 but no longer rte;,;*~ (twu SM-9, far SM-2, and one SM-3). Pour of the net water quality sampling omissions (Springs 17, 1-5, 20, and 7-1) were associated with adjudicated water rights within the permit area at locations clearly beyond the area potentially influenced by mining to date. the fifth water quality samq~ling omission (Spring 25) was associated with an adjudicated water right at a location with doamienked poar water quality adjacent to an East P7ine area inactive in terms of mining since 1982. ire sixth water quality :sampling omission (Spring 31) was associated with a site in a watershed tuxlisturbed thraryh 1993 from which 3 of 4 quarterly samples were collected. the seventh water quality sampling omission (Sw-05) was associated with a site cioaumnted to exhibit flow during a far month period frrmm whic3i one sample was collected. ]xr reviewing this violation, COVOC respectfully asks the Division to look beyond tare question of whether ar not particular monitarirg criteria were met and to consider the larger question of whether ar not the majority of the monitoring r-e~uired at Orchard Valley durissg 1993 was reasonable and necessary. ODVCC oorrtends that based upon the ~+?,~~,a*+t approval of 2Y224, considerable -justification exists to suppo2t the argim~ent that most of the omitted monitoring instances were rmnece,sary in terms of prcwiding information critical to the