1990-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael B. Long 3 OSM finds MLRD's action to be appropriate with the following exception: OSM recognizes extreme weather conditions are a factor in this area, but we are concerned with MLRD's failure to direct the implementation of the approved plan within a prescribed period. A reasonable time for abatement should be established. The TDN cites Colorado regulation 4.05.13(1) (a) as the regulation believed to have been violated for violation 3 of 9. The TDN states that the operator failed to monitor ground water for the third quarter of 1989 on well GW-1. MLRD's response indicates that the well is to be monitored semiannually-- not quarterly--and that all of the monitoring requirements for that well have been met in accordance with the approved plan. AFO has reviewed the mine plan for the monitoring requirement of this well. In addition to the mine plan reference made in your response (Chapter IV, page 23 of the permit package) , AFO found a stipulation in the mine plan requiring ground- water monitoring to be: monthly static water levels and quality samples taken quarterly (page 5.2 Vol. 5, Sec. III-E, Stipulation 11) . These sample results are to be submitted to the RA on a semiannual basis. In other words, monitoring data are to be collected quarterly and transmitted to MLRD semi-annually. There is no modification of that stipulation on file with AFO. Regardless of the frequency, all required quality parameters were not sampled due to the well's being plugged. The fact that the operator was unable to gather samples for quality data has been verified via the recent telephone conversation with the operator. In addition, it was found that no monitoring for well GW-1 had been conducted prior to the July sampling date. It is evident that a violation has occurred regardless of the frequency required in that monitoring for the required quality parameters has not occurred since the latter part of 1988. MLRD's failure to address the violation in accordance with the requirements of Colorado's program constitutes an arbitrary and capricious response. Therefore, OSM finds MLRD's response to violation 3 of 9 to be inappropriate. The TDN cites Colorado regulation 4.05.1(4) (b) as the regulation believed to have been violated for violation 4 of 9. The TDN states that the operator failed to conduct operations to minimize water pollution by controlling the drainage off the glory hole pad to the flock pond. MLRD's response indicates that the drainage is controlled by a sediment pond or series of ponds prior to discharge from the permit. MLRD relies on the evidence that no discharge violation has occurred as proof that the operation is being conducted to minimize water pollution. While AFO concurs with MLRD's finding relative to water pollution, it is apparent that the rule used to cite the violation does not correctly address the on-site erosion problem. Therefore, AFO is withdrawing violation 4 of 9 from the record and is re-issuing another TDN to clearly address the problem of erosion at the glory hole pad area.