ENFORCE21390 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~e q -3- The Division's comments that "the semi-annual submittal was perceived by the Division to be tardy, having been received by the Division almost 3 months after the reporting period" were valid, but need clarification. Had the permittee begun its surveying one month prior to the start date of December 10, 1992, or November 10, 1992, as required, then six months following the start of the approved monitoring would have been May 9, 1993. As such, the submittal of the permittee's report on September 28, 1993 was over four months later than the end of the required six-month surveying period. As the event that Rule Z.05.6(6)(c>(i)(D) is designed to prevent occurred, and the potential for material damage to the Fish Creek AVF now exists, I recommend $750.00 for the Seriousness component of this proposed penalty. III. Fault (5.04.5(2)(c)) I find that the fault to which this violation occurred lies squarely with Twentymile Coal Company. I believe it could have been avoided had the permittee followed the Rules and the conditions of its permit requiring weekly monitoring of all approved monuments, commencing one month prior to mining. It does not appear that this lack of compliance was intentional; however, the degree to which the permittee neglected to assure compliance is high. I recommend $750.00 for the Fault component of this proposed penalty. IV. Additional Per-Dav Penalties I assess this penalty for a single day of violation. V. Good Faith Credit I am currently not aware of the permittee complying with the Division's remedial action outlined in the NOV. As such, I cannot grant any good faith credit at this time. The proposed civil penalty is therefore as follows: History $150.00 Seriousness $750.00 Fault $750.00 Additional Per-Day Penalties $0.00 Good Faith Credit $0.00 TOTAL $1,650.00 9122E/scm