GENERAL42100 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

slurry wall aze not indicative of knowledge on Battle Mountain's part that the violations at issue would occur. 8. CCCD and PASS claimed that the Order fails to consider deficiencies in Battle Mountain's current stonnwater management plan, including the reduction of the West Pit's capacity to handle stormwater drainage. The Division did not find it necessary to consider any potential deficiencies in Battle Mountain's Stotmwater Management Plan in assessing penalties under the Order. The NOV-CDO and the Order focus on treatment and elimination of discharges from the West Pit, which will also assist in resolving certain stormwater problems associated with the Pit. The Stormwater Management Program anticipates reevaluation of a facility's Plan on a periodic basis in light of changing conditions at the facility. As the Groups noted, the Division has requested Battle Mountain to make necessary amendr,ents to its Plan, and these have been timely submitted to the Division. Battle Mountain is currently working to address those issues through the Division's Stormwater Program Coordinator. 9. CCCD and PAES expressed concern over the Division's reliance on TR-26 to the MLRB permit. The Division considered TR-26, along with other documents in MLREi's record, in making certain assumptions and determinations under the Order. The Division believes that it was appropriate to rely on information contained in TR-26 in conjunction with other pertinent information in the Division's and MLRB's records for resolving certain aspects of this enforcement action. The Division plans to continue coordinating with DMG on the groundwater monitoring aspects of TR-26 as they relate to the Division's jurisdiction over protection of surface water quality in the Rito Seco. 10. The Crroups claimed that the Order failed to consider all responses to the NOV and information contained in the Notice of Intent to Sue prepared by local citizens and organizations. The Division considered all relevant information in its own records and MLRB's records in making determinations under the Order. The fact that the Order itself does not address in detail every aspect of each document relied upon does not lead to the conclusion that the Division failed to consider such information. 11. CCCD and PASS stated their belief that the Order's "Statement of Fat:ts" is insufficient to justify the conclusions in Section III of the Order because it does not specifically provide the most recent data available regarding the discharges, or dissenting technical and historical documents related to the discharges, Battle Mountain's technical predictions, and Battle Mountain's operations. To its knowledge, the Division relied upon the most recent data available regazding the dischazges to support its conclusions in the Order. Although net specifically contained in the Order, this data is available through the Division at the telephone number and address found in Response #6. Again, in making its 90'd LT:£i 00.6 find 8SS£998£0£:Xp~