Laserfiche WebLink
JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR <br />NOV C-92-020 <br />NOV C-92-020 was written for "failure to maintain 5edimentaticr. pond 15-P11 to <br />provide adequate capacity to contain or treat the runoff or inflow en taring <br />the pond a5 a result of a 10-year, 2a-hour precipitation event". The primary <br />dewatering device of this pond was clogged, allowing no water to drain from <br />the pond. NOV C-92-020 ',+as issued by Joseph Dudash, Reclamation Specialist, <br />on July 28, 1992. The situaticn was found to be in noncompliance with <br />regulatory section 4.05.6(3)(x). <br />The penalty assessment proposed by the Division Assessment Officer was: <br />History -0- <br />Seriousness 5750.00 <br />Fault 500.00 <br />TOTAL PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY: 51,250.00 <br />Mr. Greg Lewicki, P.E., representative for Trinidad Basin Mines (TBM), stated <br />TBM's opinion that it would have been appropriate to allow the operator to <br />unclog the outlet structure without the issuance of a notice of violation. <br />However, Mr. Lewicki did not refute the fact of the violation. I was not <br />persuaded by Mr. Lewicki's Comments, and found the notice of violation to have <br />been appropriately issued to TBM. Based upon the evidence presented I found <br />the proposad assessment for Histcry to be appropriate. I was persuaded, <br />however, that the proposed assessments for both Seriousness ana Fault were <br />inappropriate. The emergency spillway ,gas functional and the impoundment ~.~as <br />not in danger of structural compromise. Further, Mr. Le~.viC<i provided data to <br />demonstrate that the summer of 1992 has been characterized by abnormally nigh <br />precipitation in :he Trinidad ar?a. Therefor?, am prooosir.g to decrease the <br />assessment for the Seriousness component from ~iSJ to s5•~0, ar.c the a;;ess~ent <br />for the Fault component from 3500 to 5250. <br />Regulation section S.Oa.S(3)(d> allows the confer <br />penaity reduction to reflect "Good Faith", if the <br />"extraordinary" efforts to abate the violation in <br />before the abatement deadline. I did net find an <br />to apply in this case. <br />?nC? Off1C?:" t0 d5ilgn d <br />permittee took <br />the short?st pos;ib'.e time <br />adjustment for "good with' <br />In conclusion, l propose to amend the penalty aressment for ~`lctica o' <br />Violation C-92-020, as follows: <br />History _0 <br />SerlOU;ne;; 5500.00 <br />Fault 5250.00 <br />Goad Faith -:)- <br />PROPOSED ADJUSTED CIVIL PENALTY: 5750. ;C <br />Doc. Nc: 9241E <br />