My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE26781
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE26781
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:36 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:25:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C-93-052
Violation No.
CV1993052
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.
/
3
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
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-052 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-052 was issued for "Failure to properly <br />install sections of approved upland diversions." Dan Hernandez <br />representing the Division, explained that this NOV applied to two <br />sections of the southern diversion. One section appeared to be <br />missing during his april 9-10, 1993 inspection. On a subsequent <br />inspection, however Mr. Hernandez thought the missing section <br />could have been installed and filled in. It was hard to <br />determine whether or not it had been installed. The second <br />section was in violation because the channel was directed into a <br />stock pond, off the disturbed area. <br />Al Weaver did not contest the fact of the violation. He did want <br />to discuss the proposed penalty. <br />The proposed penalty was: <br />History $200.00 <br />Seriousness $750.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1700.00 <br />Hiatorv <br />There was no dispute regarding this component. <br />Seriousness <br />The basis op the proposed penalty was that proper installation of <br />drainage control systems is vital. Failure of diversions can <br />lead to subsequent system problems, then offsite impact. <br />As discussed in the conference, the ponds were designed to <br />contain the runoff from a specific area. If the diversion ditch <br />is missing, additional runoff may go into the pond and it would <br />not be properly sized. Additionally, the stock pond was not <br />meant to serve as a mine treatment facility. Although, no actual <br />damage was observed, there was the potential. I agree with the <br />proposed penalty amount. <br />au t <br />There was no dispute regarding this component. <br />Good Faith <br />A good faith reduction is not appropriate, because the operator <br />requested an extension to the abatement deadline from May 12 to <br />May 19. The NOV was issued on April 12. i do not believe this <br />represents the shortest possible time for abating the NOV. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty Proposed $1700.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.