ENFORCE30652 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-93-081 Notice of Violation C-93-081 was issued for °Failure to have the ditch adjacent to the mine access road maintained to the design specifications that were in the permit during the July 16, 1992 inspection and the May 27, 1993 inspection." Cathy Begej issued the NOV on May 28, 1993 at the Twin Pines No. 2 Mine. Dan Hernandez represented the Division of Minerals and Geology since Cathy Begej is no longer with the Division. There is a discrepancy between the ditch design requirements in the permit and the as-built in the field. The ditch was well constructed, it simply did not follow the exact design approved in the permit. Mr. Hernandez further explained that an NOV was issued July, 1992 for the lack of designs for several ditches in the permit area. The NOV was subsequently vacated because designs were located for all the ditches in question. However, the part of the NOV addressing this ditch should not have been vacated, because the design did not corresplnd to the ditch. Mr. Lawrence White, representing Twin Pines No. 2 was upset about the issuance of the NOV. The NOV issued July, 1992 for the same ditch was vacated and now the Division has reissued it. Why, he wondered. However, he did not disagree with the discrepancy between the ditch designs and the ditch as constructed. Field modifications were made to utilize rock that was available at the time of construction and to place in a series of drops to dissipate the energy of the water flowing down the ditch. He would like to amend the permit to conform to the as-built design. Based on what i heard there is a NOV because of the discrepancy between the as-built and the approved design. The proposed civil penalty was assessed as follows: History $0.00 Seriousness $250.00 Fault $250.00 Good Faith $0.00 Total $500.00 seriousness Based on the information presented this was an administrative violation. There were no performance standards violated, the as- built was slightly different than the design with respect to the placement of the riprap. No penalty is proposed. Fault A low degree of fault has been assessed. When the as-built differs from the design, it is the operator's responsibility to amend the permit. I agree with the proposed penalty.