My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE22285
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE22285
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:03 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:08:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/26/1991
Doc Name
Settlement Agreement
From
DMG
To
Parcel Mauro Hultin Spaanstra
Violation No.
CV1991003
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
.~ <br />Justification of Settlement Agreement <br />For NOV C-91-003 <br />Conference Summar <br />NOV C-91-003 was issued for "failure to perform hydrologic monitoring in 1990 <br />in accordance with the hydrologic monitoring plan". The NOV applied to a <br />number of surface water and ground water monitoring sites which, under the <br />permit, were to have been monitored periodically during 1990. <br />The basic issue of contention discussed during the conference was whether or <br />not the june 26, 1990 Compliance Agreement entered into between the Division <br />and Rockcastle relieved Rockcastle from the requirement to conduct the <br />hydrologic monitoring required by the permit. Rockcastle's mining and <br />reclamation permit had previously expired and was not renewed. Dean Massey <br />and Brent Anderson representing Rockcastle asserted that since the permit had <br />expired and since the hydrology monitoring was not specifically addressed in <br />the Compliance Agreement, there was no violation. Mr. Massey and Mr. Anderson <br />further asserted that since Rockcastle was proceeding in good faith with the <br />terms of the Compliance Agreement, no civil penalty should be assessed. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $1000.00 <br />Good Faith $ 0.00 <br />Total $1500.00 <br />Fact of Violation <br />I find that a violation did occur, even though sections of the Compliance <br />Agreement detailing specific items of agreement between the Division and <br />Rockcastle do not address the hydrologic monitoring requirements. "Whereas <br />clause" No. 2 of the Compliance Agreement states Rockcastle's desire to <br />conduct reclamation activities at the site "pursuant to the Act and the terms <br />of the Permit". Rule 3.04.1(2) addresses the conditions under which the Board <br />may withhold declaration of bond forfeiture ff the permittee agrees to a <br />compliance schedule. 3.04.1<2>(c) states that the Board shall not agree to a <br />compliance schedule if the "permittee cannot demonstrate or prove the ability <br />to continue to operate in compliance with the Act, these Rules and the <br />permit." Rockcastle's right to mine coal ended when the permit expired, but <br />their obligation to conduct reclamation, perform associated monitoring, and <br />maintain appropriate records as required by the permit and Regulations did not <br />end. <br />History <br />There have been no NOVs or COs during the previous year <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.