1993-11-30_ENFORCEMENT - C1981017

Home Browse Search

beyond 90 days. Hiring a new consultant or new personnel is not contemplated as a reason to extend an abatement. I - I understand that the revision submitted to satisfy the abatement requirements is very vague, and does not adequately address the concerns noted in the violation. Although the Division did not send an adequacy letter to Mid-Continent, I believe that it is incumbent upon an operator in violation to aggressively pursue abatement. In this case, Mid-Continent has had knowledge of these concerns for years. The revision should have clearly addressed the sedimentation issues. Further, as the abatement deadline approached, Mid-Continent should have taken affirmative actions to obtain Division approval of the revision. - It may be argued that the issue of road sediment generation will be alleviated during final reclamation. This is true, however the timing of final reclamation is not known. Given the structure of the currently proposed liquidating plan, adequate funds to ensure that reclamation is accomplished may not be available for years to come. It is hard to imagine that the site could be completely reclaimed in less than three construction seasons. In the meantime, the roads will continue to contribute sediment in levels which exceed background levels. - If the violation abatement is extended based upon final reclamation resolving the problem, it will be necessary to continue to re-extend the abatement every 90 days until such time as final reclamation is completed, realistically, three or more years from now. - Mid-Continent has been made aware of the need to stabilize the roads on numerous occasions, but has yet to adequately address the problem. Since 1988, Mid-Continent has received nine violations regarding their failure to minimize erosion and resultant sedimentation from the road and ditch system. Three of these nine violations were cited in the Settlement Agreement which resolved the 1991 Show Cause Order. Mid-Continent has not shown any inclination to alleviate this on-going concern in an interim manner, always arguing that it would be accomplished during final reclamation. - This violation was written in lieu of receiving a Ten-Day Notice. Based upon past experience and upon the belief that the OSM is looking for a method of inserting itself into a control, rather than oversight role, I would expect that a Federal violation would be written for this issue. Based upon the enforcement history, and the lack of a compelling reason to extend the length time that this violation would remain unabated, it would be very difficult to obtain a vacation of a Federal violation. There is little doubt that the result of Mid-Continent continuing to ignore this issue results in increased sedimentation to receiving streams. Issuance of the FTACO in this case is a