ENFORCE35212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Steve Renner, 14ichael Long - 3 - September 16, 1993 It can be easily argued that we have operated with reasonable diligence, and yet did not know of the facts surrounding this situation until the inspection of August 12, 1993. Ultimately, this argument must be reviewed by an attorney, and sanctioned by a court to be given credibility If MCC has more specific documents to show that this Division knew of this situation earlier, then the documents should be provided. Notice of Violation C-93-113 - Topsoil Consolidation MY review of this issue indicates that a violation may or may not have occurred. The documents are sufficiently vague that MCC may be entitled to request that this violation be vacated. Our inspector did know of the activity, and did document this in her inspection reports. Ylhile this doesn't constitute formal approval as intended by our regulations, it certainly does imply that we had "no problem" with the activity. The topsoil management plan in the MCC permit documents is somewhat vague, and it is at least plausible that MCC thought they were moving the topsoil to an approved location. This is ane that can probably be vacated. We request that if the violation is vacated, that MCC be reminded that topsoil movement, or any other mine related activity must be approved by the Division, by the permit revision (permit revision, technical revision, minor revision) process prior to implementation. The regulations are clear and specific in this area. (For example - 2.01.1, 2.91.3, 2.08.4(1), 2.08.4(2), etc). The MCC assertion that, "there is no requirement to revise the permit rp for to topsoil relocation", is absolutely wrong as indicated by regulatory requirements, Division policy, and past MCC practice. Finally, MCC should be reminded that Rule 2.05.3(5) requires a topsoil plan and "A map of any proposed storage structures". A map must be approved, as part of the permit document, which clearly shows each and every stockpile. The word roposed in this citation substantiates the need and requirement to indicate pt a ovations prior to implementation. and to have such proposed locations approved by this Division prior to implementation. The MCC maps and plans are sufficiently vague so as to indicate possible compliance. Our inspection report also implied concurrence. Based upon these facts, we recommend the violation be vacated. But we should also require that a revision be submitted to clarify the issue. Please note that this issue is of utnast importance in that we have identified a possible topsoil resource deficit at the MCC site. Notice of Yiolation C-93-114 - Light Use Roads This violation was written because we believe certain areas of the mine constitute, and are being used as light use roads. It turns out that no permitting documents or Division approvals exist for these roads. As a result, a violation was issued, and we request that it not be vacated.