ENFORCE29417

• Permit No: C1982055
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 7/7/1993
• Doc Name: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOV C-93-050
• Violation No.: CV1993050
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION
NOV C-93-050
Notice of Violation C-93-050 was issued for "Failure to post and/
or maintain: (a) Mine and permit identification signs
(b) Perimeter markers for all areas affected by
surface operations or facilities and
(c) Topsoil markers."
Dan Hernandez explained that this NOV applied to: (a)Mine and
permit identification signs at the Santa Fe loadout area,
(b)Perimeter markers at the Santa Fe loadout, southern upland
diversions, southern edges of substation area and haul road, and
two sections of watershed diversion ditch ~l, and (c) topsoil
marker at topsoil pile near sediment pond.
Al Weaver, representing the operator, did not contest the
violation. He said the disturbance area was not mapped out per
se, they relied on the drainage boundaries to mark the perimeter
of the mine site. The loadout markers are difficult to keep in
place, the railroad often removes signs that get in their way.
He did contest the proposed penalty.
The proposed penalty was:
History $200.00
Seriousness $500.00
Fault $500.00
Good Faith $0.00
Total
$1050.00
Historv_
The operator did not contest this component.
Seriousness
The basis of the proposed penalty was that signs are needed to
ensure proper .protection of environmental resources and the
public. Mr. Weaver claimed that the ditches defined the
disturbed area.
This may be true and known to the operator but the general public
needs to be aware of the perimeter boundaries for safety reasons.
Additionally, inspectors need to know the jurisdictional
boundaries. The loadout is an actively used area and people need
to know who to contact in case problems arise.
I agree with the proposed penalty.
au t
The operator did not contest this component.
Good Faith
I agree with the proposed reduction for good faith.
Settlement Agreement Penalty Proposed $1050.00