Laserfiche WebLink
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-014 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-014 was issued for "Failure to submit <br />for approval designs for the following: <br />A. Eleven (11) culverts as specified in the NOV, and <br />B. Topsoil pile sediment control measures. Five (5) <br />containment ditches were specified." <br />The operator disagreed with portions of the NOV. He contested <br />the culverts cited as (10) and (11), the two eastern most <br />railroad culverts. They are owned by the railroad and were <br />installed by them. There is a question regarding jurisdiction <br />over them, since they are owned by the railroad, but they are a <br />part of the mine disturbance area. I would suggest that since <br />they are part of the mine drainage system that the operator work <br />out a maintenance agreement with the railroad. They are <br />adequately sized, according to the information submitted by the <br />operator as part of the abatement. <br />The second citation Mr. Thompson contested was the lack of <br />designs for the ditches around the topsoil piles. The presence <br />of the ditch and the associated berm creates a small area <br />exemption. The piles were approved, permitted structures and no <br />designs had ever been required. But they were not approved as <br />small area exemptions. I feel that the lack of designs was a <br />permitting oversight. Designs for the "small area exemptions" <br />should have been requested during the midterm or permit renewal. <br />Upon further investigation after the assessment conference, I was <br />informed that a letter had gone out to all the operators <br />explaining the requirements for small area exemptions. <br />Therefore, the operator should have been aware of the permitting <br />requirements. <br />Mr. Thompson did not contest the amount of the proposed civil <br />penalty, but he did request a good faith reduction. Basin <br />Resuources hired a consultant to provide the necessary designs. <br />A Technical Revision was submitted April 30. I believe the <br />operator abated the NOV in a timely fashion, but I do not think <br />it represents an extraordinary effort or the shortest time <br />possible. <br />Proposed Settlement Agreement Penalty $550.00 <br />