Laserfiche WebLink
- C <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-94-027 <br />Notice of Violation C-94-027 was issued for "Failure to provide evidence that certain <br />impoundment quarterly inspections were conducted by a qualified registered professional <br />engineer or a qualified individual under their direction, and failure to provide the reports to <br />the Division by a registered professional engineer". Dave Beny issued the NOV from the <br />office on September 29, 1994 to Slurco Corporation for the Canadian Strip Mine. An <br />assessment conference was held on December 5, 1994 with Dave Berry representing the <br />Division of Minerals and Geology and Jerry Koblitz representing Slurco Corporation. <br />Dave Berry stated that for Ponds 1 and~2 the following reports did not provide evidence that <br />the inspections were conducted by a qualified registered professional engineer or a qualified <br />individual under their direction <br />All 1991 inspections <br />First, second and third quarter 1992 inspections <br />First, second and third quarter 1993 inspections; and <br />First, and second quarter 1994 inspections. <br />Jeny Koblitz requested that the NOV be vacated. The engineer from Greystone conducts an <br />annual pond inspection and certification. Quarterly reports far 1992 and 1993 were reviewed <br />by him in preparation for his inspections. All the inspectors are from Greystone and they are <br />all trained and qualified to conduct pond inspections. However, the inspecdons are not done <br />"under the direction" of the engineer. In 1991, there was a transfer of ownership. Sturco <br />contends that engineers conducted the inspections, although there is no documentation of this. <br />This has never been identified as a problem before, therefore it should not be a violation <br />now. <br />Based on the information presented I will uphold the NOV. The evidence presented by <br />Slurco indicates an engineer reviews the quarterly pond reports prior to his annual inspection. <br />It does not~demonstrate that the inspections aze conducted under his direction as required by <br />Rule 4.05.9(13). <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 />Seriousness <br />Based on the information presented in the conference I am proposing to reduce this to <br />$100.00 and as an administrative violation. All of the persons inspecting the pond were <br />