ENFORCE34803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOV C-87-021 NOV C-87-021 was written for "failure to provide an adequate bond" and "failure to submit a revised reclamation plan." Bob Liddle explained that several deficiencies had been identified with the Somerset reclamation plan during the mid-term review which was conducted in April, 1986. These deficiencies affected the required bond amount. The Division did not receive an acceptable replacement bond or a response to the concerns by a June 15, 1987 deadline, thus NOV C-87-021 was issued. Mr. Balaz did not contest the fact of the violation, but he did object to the proposed civil penalty. The proposed civil penalty was: History 3 50.00 Seriousness E1 ,750,00 Fault E 750.00 Good Faith ~ 000.00 TOTAL ;;2,550.00 History One NOV has been issued during the past twelve months. Seriousness fie proposed penalty was assessed for severe seriousness, based on the inadequate reclamation plan and the belief at the time the NOV was written that the operator was underbonded by 51.3 million dollars. The operator argued that they are only underbonded by-approximately 5100,000.00, and therefore the seriousness is not as severe as proposed. I disagree, any bond deficiency is severe and could result in a partially unreclaimed mine site. fierefore, I will uphold the proposed penalty. Fault I agree with the proposed penalty. Good Faith The operator submitted the revised reclamation plan by the abatement deadline. Given the number of deficiencies in the plan and the fact that the operator brought people in from another mine to accomplish this task, I believe this represents the shortest time possible and an extraordinary effort. I propose to reduce the penalty by 5350.00. Final Civil Penalty History E 50.00 Seriousness 51,750.00 Fault S 750.00 Good Faith E- 350.00 TOTAL E2 ,200.00 /mll 2627E