ENFORCE27416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i ~ '. ' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-93-131 Notice of Violation C-93-131 was issued for "Failure to design, construct and certify temporary impoundments (SAE sediment traps and sumps) per the regulations". Dan Hernandez issued the NOV to Energy Fuels Coal Inc. on September 22, 1993 at the Southfield Mine. Shawn Smith, representing the Division of Minerals and Geology in the assessment conference, said it was written for three sumps, the "truck turnaround", ^SW sediment trap" and ^railway containment area SW^. Each area has been approved as a small area exemption, however not to the required criteria. Designs were approved for the ten-year Strom event with no discharge outlet. A strict interpretation of the regulations classifies the sumps as temporary impoundments or non-discharging sediment ponds. Rules 4.05.9 (2) and 4.05.6 (5)(b) requires that these structures be designed for the 25-year, 24-hour event. There are no environmental concerns with the SAE'S. They are serving the purpose and fuctioning well. Alan Weaver, representing Energy Fuels Coal Inc., questioned why the NOV had been issued. Two of the SAE'S had been approved in April, 1993 and the other in a previous Minor Revision. All of them were constructed as they were approved. I looked into this issue after the assessment conference. The Division had been interpreting the rules different than the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). Due to some ten-day notices, the Division has had to re-evaluate how SAE'S are approved. Evidently, the reviewer did not use this interpretaton in April when approving the SAE'S at the Southfield Mine. The proposed civil penalty was: History $150.00 Seriousness $250.00 Fault $0.00 Good Faith $0.00 Total $400.00 History NOV C-93-103 is incorectly included in the assessment. it was not issued to Energy Fuels Coal Inc. History is $100.00 seriousness Based on the infromation presented in the assessment conference, I believe this is an administrtive violation. All structures were built as approveved and were functioning well. They were designed as required by the Division at the time. I am reducigin the penalty for seriousness to zero. Fau t I agree with the proposed penalty.