ENFORCE35527 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' • • Early spring of 1993. Ultimately, this AHR was not received by the Division until September of 1993. After review it was noted that COVCC failed to conduct their hydrologic monitoring as per the approved plan. NOV C-93-147 was issued in November of 1993 for failure to conduct hydrologic monitoring as per the approved plan. Ultimately, this NOV resulted in a technical revision to reduce hydrologic monitoring requirements being submitted on December 13, 1993, which was ultimately approved on March 22, 1994. This was the same revision that was discussed some 16 months prior. Delays in compiling and submitting the 1993 AHR were again encountered by COVCC in early 1994. In May of 1994, the Division received the AHR for 1993. After review, it was again readily apparent that the operator had not conducted monitoring as per the approved plan. Therefore, the Division issued the current NOV, this one, again, for failure to conduct hydrology monitoring as per the approved plan. What is clear is that the operator took it upon themselves to reduce their monitoring plan as they saw fit without any prior approval. Furthermore, they instituted this reduction even before any discussions were held with the Division in 1992 and continued to fail to monitor sites after they were made keenly aware that reductions in monitoring need to be approved through the technical revision process in August of 1992. I do not feel that a degree of leniency should be shown by the Division in this particular case. I believe the operator made a conscious financially based decision to not conduct their monitoring plan as per the approved plan. By not visiting over 100 sites within two years and not collecting tens of water quality samples, the operator would stand to save a substantial sum of money, even when offset by the 1993 NOV penalty of $1,650.00. I believe the penalty assessed for this NOV should be commensurate with the financial gain the operator stood to realize in addition to the fine itself. I would base it on the following facts: Site visits missed = 231 Water quality samples not taken = 43 43 samples missed X $60 per sample = $2,580.00 saved 231 visits missed X 15 minutes per visit = 3465 minutes 3465 minutes/60 minutes/hr. =57.75 hours saved 57.75 hours X $23.00/hr personnel time = $1,328.00 $1,328.00 + $2,580.00 = $3,908.00 Failing to conduct hydrologic monitoring is a serious violation, especially when it occurs on a frequent basis. The operator makes