Laserfiche WebLink
JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR <br /> NOY C-89-017 <br /> NOY C-89-017 was written for "failure to construct sediment control measures <br /> for the topsoil stockpile under construction northwest of the Sutey wastepile <br /> expansion". Mr. Stevens explained that there was no sediment control around <br /> the topsoil stockpile. Site preparation for the stockpile commenced last <br /> fall , ceased during the winter, and construction of the stockpile was fully <br /> underway in April . This lack of sediment control was observed during <br /> Mr. Stevens' May 24-26 inspection. In a review of past correspondence <br /> Mr. Stevens realized that no sediment control measures had been considered in <br /> the revision review. This was inadvertently missed by both the Division and <br /> the operator. <br /> The operator contested the fact of the violation. There was no eviaence of <br /> environmental damage. Furthermore, Ms. Delaney felt that since the sediment <br /> control plan was overlooKed during the review by both the Division and <br /> Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. , and that the long-term abatement plan approved <br /> by the Division (a containment area at the base of the pile) can not be <br /> constructed until after the pile is completed, the NOY should be vacated. <br /> I disagree. Rule 4.05.2(1 ) clearly requires that "all surface drainage from <br /> the disturDed area . . .shall be passed through a sedimentation pond, a series <br /> of sedimentation ponds , or a treatment facility before leaving the permit <br /> area". Sediment control measures are to be constructed prior to disturbance. <br /> The proposed civil penalty was: <br /> History g 50.00 <br /> Seriousness 250.00 <br /> Fault 250.00 <br /> Good Faith 0.00 <br /> TOTAL <br /> History <br /> There nas been one NOV during the past twelve months that is no longer the <br /> subject of penaing administrative review. <br /> Seriousness <br /> No actual damage was observed. There was a grass buffer zone that essentially <br /> treated the runoff before it hit a clear water diversion. However, there was <br /> the potential for damage especially during the construction phase if a large <br /> storm event would have occurred. I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />