ENFORCE21934 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-95-017 Notice of Violation C-95-017 was issued for "Failure to backfill and grade to a minimum static factor of safety of 1.3, resulting in the slope failure and subsequent loss of topsoil of a portion of a reclaimed slope." ]ce Dudash issued the NOV to Trapper Mining, Inc. on May 30, 1995 for the Trapper Mine. Qo May 5, 1995 Trapper Mining Inc. (Trapper) called to report the slide which had occurred on May 4. The call was followed up by a written report on May 9 and Trapper committed to repair the slide when conditions allowed. An aerial inspection of the area was conducted by the DMG on May 17, 1995, with a subsequent ground inspection on May 24. Results of these inspections showed the slide covered approximately two and a half acres in the southern most part of the Ashmore scraper pit. The top of the slide was approximately 400 feet long, the head scarp was approximately 10 feet in height. A berm, created at the tce of the slope, was approximately 250 feet long, and 10 to 15 feet high. Some water had accumulated in the headscarp and on the lower edge. A small amount of water was draining off the berm on the lower end. Avery small amount of topsoil was lost as a result of the slide. Mr. Dudash reviewed the violated Rules he cited in the NOV. Rule 4.14.2(1)(6) requires that grading must achieve a minimum static factor of safety of 1.3. Rule 4.14.1(2)(a) states that backfilling shall be conducted to insure stability. Rule 4.14.2(5) requires that grading shall be conducted to min;m;~r slippage. Lastly, Rule 4.06.4(2) addresses necessary measures to protect the topsoil resource. Representing Trapper Mining Inc. (Trapper) at the conference were Forrest Luke, Mark Wehmanen, Rick Fanyo and Vladimir Straskraba. Mr. Fanyo, speaking for Trapper, contested the fact of the violation. In his opinion the occurrence of the slide was a permitting issue, not an enforcement issue, or a violation of the performance standards. The permit review process is where all the reclamation standards are established. Trapper followed all permit requirements during the backfilling, grading and topsoiling operations in this area. The cited rules were not violated because Trapper conducted their operation in compliance with the permit. Furthermore, he felt the cited Rules were too subjective, with the exception of Rule 4.14.2(1)(6) and Trapper did achieve the 1.3 safety factor. Therefore, Trapper requested that the NOV be vacated. Based on the information presented in the conference I will uphold the NOV. Despite Trapper's best efforts to achieve compliance, a slide occurred and the minimum safety factor of 1.3 was not accomplished at the time of the slide. I do not agree with the argument that because the permit was followed, there is not a violation. Clearly, there was a violation of the performance standards. Since the area sfid there was not a minimum safety factor of 1.3 in violation of Rule 4.14.2(1)(6). Rule 4.06.4(2) was violated since some, albeit minimal, amount of topsoil was lost.