Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR <br />NOV C-92-021 <br />NOV C-42-021 was written for "failure to maintain the principal spill~.vays of <br />permanent impoundments 15-P1, 15-P2, 15-P20 and 15-P17". NOV C-92-021 was <br />subsequently modified to include permanent impoundment 15-P8. The primary <br />dewatering device of each pond was clogged, allowing no water to drain from <br />the pond. NOV C-92-021 was issued by Joseph Dudash, Reclamation Specialist, <br />on July 28, 1992. The situation was found to be in noncompliance with <br />regulatory section 4.05.9(1)(e). <br />The penalty assessment proposed by the Divisicn Assz<.sment Officer was: <br />History -0- <br />Seriousness 5750.00 <br />Fault 5500.00 <br />TOTAL PROPOSED Ci!/IL PENALTY: 51,250.00 <br />Mr. Greg Lewic:<i, P.E., representative for Trinidad Basin Mines (TBM>, stated <br />TBM's opinion that it wculd have been appropriate to allow the operator to <br />unclog the outlet structures without the issuance of a notice of violation. <br />In this instance an operator's representative had not accompanied Mr. Dudash <br />during his inspection. However, Mr. Le~,vicki did not refute the fact of the. <br />violation. I s+as not persuaded by Mr. Le'.vicki's comments, and found the <br />notice of violation to have been appropriately issued to TBM. Based upon the <br />evidence presented I found the proposed assessment for History to be <br />apprcpriate. I was persuaded, however, that the proposed a<_sessment; fcr both <br />Seriousness and Fault '.vere inappropriately high. The emergency spillways were <br />functional and none of the impcundments ~.vera in danger of structural <br />compromise. Furthe-, Mr. Lei.+icki provide? data to demcnstrata fiat the Summer <br />Of 1992 hdS been C~'3r3Ct2r1Zed by dbnOrmally hly'h preCipltatiCn in the <br />Trinidad area. Ther=for?, I am prcoosing to decrease -he a<_sessment for the <br />Serieusness component from 5.50 tc 5500, and the ar essment fcr the Fault <br />component from 5500 to 5250. <br />Regulation section S.Oa.S(3)(d) allows the conference officer to assign a <br />penalty reduction to reflect "Good Faith", if the permittee tock <br />"extraordinary" efforts to abate the violation in the shortest po5;ible time <br />before the abatement deadline. I did not find 3n adiustment far "good faith" <br />to apply in this cast. <br />In conclusion, ? propose to amend the penalty assessment fcr +aotice of <br />Violation C-92-OZI, as Follows: <br />History -0 <br />Seriousness SSCO.CC <br />Fault 5250.C0 <br />Good Faith -~- <br />?RCPOSED ACJUSTED CI'/?L PE'•1P.LT'!: S75J.GC <br />Doc. NO: 9241E <br />