Laserfiche WebLink
Justification of Settlement Agreement <br />for Notice of Violation C-91-037 <br />Conference Summar <br />NOV C-91-037 was issued on December 31, 1991 by Cathy Begej of the Division, <br />based on an inspection she conducted December 17-19, 1991, at the Southfield <br />Mine. The NOV was issued for "failure to permit and bond for disturbance <br />outside the permit area." <br />Ms. Begej, representing the Division, explained that the NOV applied to <br />portions of sediment pond embankments and spillway structures at four <br />locations. A total affected area of approximately 1 1/4 acres extended beyond <br />the permit area boundary. Mr. Allen Weaver, representing Energy Fuels Coal, <br />Inc. CEFCI) indicated that each of the facilities had been appropriately <br />bonded, and Ms. Begej stated that that appeared to be the case. The permit <br />boundaries had been originally designated based on property boundaries, and so <br />some question exists as to the operator's right of entry to maintain the <br />structures as necessary. The operator has maintained the sites as warranted <br />in the past, and Mr. Weaver indicated that legal right of entry had been <br />secured for all but one of the cited locations. <br />Fact of Violation <br />The essential fact of the violation, that some disturbance occurred outside of <br />the permit area boundary, is not in dispute. I find that a violation did <br />occur. <br />Civil Penalty Assessment <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History: $ 0.00 <br />Seriousness 250.00 <br />Fault 250.00 <br />Good Faith 0.00 <br />Total $500.00 <br />History <br />The history component was not disputed. <br />Seriousness <br />Based on the small amount of disturbance outside the permit boundary, the <br />operator argued that the damage was insignificant. While the disturbance was <br />minimal, I do not agree that it was insignificant. It is very important that <br />ali affected areas and structures be located entirely within the permit <br />boundary, to protect the interests of adjacent landowners and insure that the <br />operator will be able to conduct any necessary maintenance, monitoring and <br />reclamation activities. I propose no reduction in the assessment in <br />seriousness. <br />