ENFORCE35527

• Permit No: C1981038
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 11/17/1994
• Doc Name: COMMENTS CONCERNING PENALTY ASSESSMENT NOV C-94-032 C-81-038 ORCHARD VALLEY MINE
• From: DMG
• To: PENALTY ASSESSMENT OFFICER NOV C-94-032
• Violation No.: CV1994032
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

r~
• • III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 275
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FA%:1303) 872-8106
Date: November 17, 1994
II~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Ronier
Governor
To: Penalty Assessment Officer, NOV file C-94-032 lames S. LOChhead
Execwive Dueuor
From: Kent Gorham ~. Michael B. Long
Division Director
RE: Comments concerning penalty assessment, NOV C-94-032, #C-81-
038, Orchard Valley Mine
The operator has submitted a response to NOV C-94-032 for failure
to conduct hydrologic monitoring as per the approved plan at the
Cyprus Orchard Valley mine. This response was submitted to "fast
track" the termination and the penalty assessment due to a pending
sale of the Orchard Valley mine.
The operator submitted 24 pages by FAX to respond to the NOV.
Basically, they are claiming that they did enough monitoring in
enough detail to detect mining impacts to the hydrologic
monitoring. They claim that their familiarity with the mine plan,
the previous data, the expected impacts, and the informal
discussions held with the Division justify the monitoring that was
conducted in 1993. They also claim that due to a limited amount of
personnel and a desire to maintain economic viability, monitoring
was not done to the extent required by the approved permit. Some
understanding of the history and timing of event is necessary to
fully understand the nature and reasons behind this NOV.
proposed reduction.
Discussions were first held on August 26th, 1992 concerning COVCC's
desire to reduce their hydrologic monitoring program. At this
time, Karl Koehler of COVCC presented some preliminary ideas as to
how the restructured monitoring plan might be proposed based on the
current and future mine plan at Orchard Valley. These discussions
were held with Steve Shuey and Kent Gorham of DMG and based on
those discussions, we indicated that a proposal of that nature
would be acceptable to us and there appeared sound reasons to
modify the monitoring plan. We also made it clear at that time
that any reduction would need to be done through the technical
revision process. We also discussed meeting again prior to
submittal of this revision to specifically address monitoring
reductions and ultimately streamline the adequacy review of the
The following Spring, various delays were encountered by COVCC with
regard to submitting their 1992 AHR by the required deadline of