ENFORCE37899 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Proposed decision on requests for vacation of Parts 1 and 2 of NOV CV-2005-006 The Assessment Conference Officer agrees with TCC regarding vacation of Part 1 of NOV CV-2005-006 and will request that the Director of the Division of Minerals and Geology, Ronald W. Cattany, vacate this portion of the NOV. The Division staff presented no evidence that the SAE was unable to handle (perhaps completely contain) the normal runoff from the design storm event. The Assessment Conference Officer disagrees with TCC regarding vacation of Part 2 of NOV CV-2005- 006. Even though TCC claims that the pumping activity was no different than typical irrigation or stock watering operations in the area, the water from this particular pumping activity was directly used to support permitted drilling operations directly related to underground mining activity as defined by Rule 1.04(144). The Division is charged with protection of the hydrological balance and specifically, under Rule 2.05.6(3)(a)(i) and (ii) with protection of the quality of surface and groundwater and the rights of present users to surface and ground water, This charge cannot be fulfilled and determinations as to whether water quality or other users are being protected cannot be made if the operator does not provide a description of activities directly related to mining. Proposed decision regarding civil penalties associated with NOV CV-2005.006 The Proposed Civil Penalty by the Assessment Officer for NOV CV-2005-006 was: • History $ 0.00 • Seriousness $250.00 • Fault $250.00 • Good Faith 0.00 Total Penalty Proposed $500.00 After hearing the testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the following conclusions: History A $ 0.00 penalty is appropriate for history. Seriousness I agree with the Assessment Officer that only water that was in compliance with discharge standards escaped from containment in the SAE area and that there was no documented discharge to Fish Creek. However, since this is already a very low proposed civil penalty, 1 propose no change in the penalty for this aspect of the violation. Fault I agree with the Assessment Officer in the finding of negligent fault. After reviewing the files and hearing TCC's reasons for the water discharge, I believe that TCC was negligent in not properly forseeing the possibility of discharge to the surface given that there was a direct, open pipe connection from the water system to the surface. The initial assessment was small and, in my view, appropriate and I propose no reduction in the penalty for negligence.