Laserfiche WebLink
~4 <br />2 <br />1) Pursuant to 5.03.3(2)(a)(i), two of the violations (C-96- <br />O10 and C-97-001) were of the same or related <br />requirements of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining <br />Reclamation Act (the Act), the Rules, or the approved <br />permit. In fact, the citations were for the same <br />violation at the same location (Minewater Discharge Point <br />004). <br />2) Pursuant to 5.03.3(2)(a)(iv), the cited violations do not <br />appear to have been isolated departures from lawful <br />conduct. A previous notice of violation had been written <br />based on an inspection of June 30, 1995, for the same <br />violation at the same discharge point. <br />Pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(2)(c), I am declining to issue a show cause <br />order because I find that given the circumstances in this case, it <br />would be demonstrably unjust to issue the order. My basis for this <br />determination is that, as abatement for NOV C-97-001, the operator <br />has prepared a surface treatment plan which will entail retention <br />of minewater in a settling pond, with treatment as necessary to <br />ensure compliance prior to discharge. It is my understanding that <br />this treatment plan will remedy the recurrent non-compliance at <br />Discharge Site 004, which resulted in the pattern of violations. <br />It is imperative that this problem not recur in the future. <br />If you have further questions or need aditional information, please <br />contact me, or Dan Mathews of my staff. <br />Sincerely, <br />Michael B. Lo <br />Director <br />cc: Dan Mathews <br />Susan McCannon <br />Larry Routten <br />m:\041pov97.ltr <br />