Laserfiche WebLink
PCC 2/93 page 2 <br />NOV C-92-38 -Dealt with CRDA #1 drainage ditches. Issued 12/3/92. <br />Abatement date was 2/2/92. <br />Modification to NOV C-92-38 on 1/4/93. This modification added other <br />locations that were subjects of the TDN issued as a result of the oversight <br />inspection. Corrective actions for these added locations were also listed. The first <br />corrective action required dealt with the two CMP's and has an abatement date of <br />2/2/93. The second corrective action required dealt with grading of the pile with an <br />abatement date of 3/2/93. <br />Modification to C-92-38 to extend the abatement date to 3/2/93 to place <br />riprap. <br />NOV 93-004 -Dealt with contemporaneous reclamation. Issued <br />1/29/93. Abatement date is 3/16/93. Discussion as to why this NOV does not <br />meet the state program requirements is in the findings letter from AFO to DMG <br />dated 2/18/93. <br />The Federal NOV was issued because these actions listed above did not cause the <br />CRDA #2 ditch to be corrected or the piles to be covered within a time period no <br />later than ninety days after issuance of an NOV. <br />On 3/1/93, six days after the inspection, DMG faxed to AFO a modification to C-92- <br />38 that added the CRDA #2 ditch, with remedial actions, and an abatement date of <br />3/3/93. The issue date on this modification is 2/23/93. The only function <br />conducted on 2/23/93 was a close out where I explained my actions and hand <br />delivered the Federal NOV; I left the site around S:OOam. As such, I assume that <br />DMG issued this modification after the Federal NOV was issued. If not, neither the <br />DMG representative (also the signatory of the modification) nor the operator made <br />OSM aware of its existence. Therefore, this modification has no bearing on the <br />Federal NOV. <br />TDN X93-020-370-001, TV1, is also being issued for failure to provide a certified <br />report following critical construction periods. This violation was initially considered <br />part of the contemporaneous reclamation TDN issued as a result of the oversight <br />inspection. However, after review of the DMG responses, AFO decided that this <br />should be addressed separately. This violation is essentially an obstruction <br />violation while the other conditions listed as part of the contemporaneous <br />reclamation violation were field conditions. The DMG representative on this <br />inspection questioned what remedial action could be required if PCC was unable to <br />provide such a report. I used the analogy of a blasting report; if an operator <br />cannot obtain the information because the persons are no longer at the site or <br />whatever, then there may not be a remedial action. However, just because there <br />may not be a remedial action for a violation of a pertormance standard, that <br />violation still must be documented with an enforcement action. <br />