ENFORCE24068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOV C-86-033 NOV C-86-033 was written for "mining outside approved pit boundary as shown on Map-1 OF, Trapper Mine Master Layout 1985". Gregg Squire explained that coal removal had extended beyond the area approved for the five year coal removal area. The area approved for topsoil removal and pit preparation; however, extended a couple pit widths beyond the coal removal area. Mr. Squire stated the main concerns of this violation were on the bond amount and the fact that an updated mine plan was needed. A technical revision had been submitted to the Division February 13, 1986, but had not been approved at the time of the inspection. The operator did not contest the fact of the violation, but they did contest the proposed civil penalty. The proposed civil penalty was: History S .00 Seriousness 1000.00 Fault 750.00 Good Faith -250.00 TOTAL $T5~6 d~ History There are no previous violations. Seriousness Mr. Fanyo contested the proposed civil penalty because it was assessed as though it were a violation of a performance standard. No performance standards were violated; this was an administrative violation. For administrative violations the penalty is to be based on the extent to which enforcement was obstructed by the violation. In this case, Mr. Fanyo stated that the Division had written two adequacy letters to Trapper Mining Inc, on March 3 and March 25. No concerns regarding the area in violation were expressed and no additional bond was needed. Mr. Fanyo also stated that the permit was issued late 1982, approximately two years after it was submitted. For that reason Trapper Mining Inc. had not submitted mining maps for the latter portion of the five permit term (1986 an 1987) in the original application. I do not feel the argument regarding the timing of permit approval has any bearing on the seriousness of this violation. The operator should have been well aware of the approved mine plan since 1982 and the need to update it for 1986 and 1987. This is considered in fault. Based on the other information presented in the assessment conference, I feel a reduction in the seriousness component is appropriate. The area in violation was part of the approved disturbed area, but coal removal had not been approved. Gregg Squire confirmed that the existing bond adequately covered the area and that there were no associated performance standard violations. For these reasons, I do not believe the Division's ability to enforce was significantly obstructed and I propose to reduce this component to E250.00.