My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE20307
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE20307
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:24:32 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:46:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/7/1993
Doc Name
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Violation No.
CV1993045
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-045 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-045 was issued for "Failure to notify <br />Division of highwall slide at East Portals area." Joe Dudash, <br />representing the Division explained that a portion of the east <br />portal at Raton Creek ~1 had slid. The debris was blocking a <br />couple of entries. The blocked portals were sealed. The <br />Division had not been notified per Rule 4.12(2). His concerns <br />were safety, potential for further failure and potential to <br />affect the integrity of the upland diversion ditch. Pictures of <br />the slide area were shown. <br />Al Weaver, representing Energy Fuels Mining Company, contested <br />the fact of the violation. First, he did not recognize it as a <br />slide that would have potential adverse effects on public <br />property, health, safety or the environment, He considered it a <br />small failure in a pre-law highwall. The mine portals within the <br />slide area had been sealed in June, 1991. Second, he did not <br />realize that the Division had to be notified of slides within the <br />disturbed area. Several inspectors from the Division had <br />observed the slide, but no one had said it was a violation. The <br />slide occurred in August, 1991. <br />Technically, I believe a violation did occur. The failed portion <br />of the highwall was a slide in my opinion, and the Division had <br />not been notified. The area was still not stable and safety was <br />a concern as well as potential impacts to the upland diversion. <br />Although several inspectors had seen the slide, it had not been <br />noted in an inspection report. <br />The proposed penalty was: <br />History $200.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $500.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1200.00 <br />History <br />The operator did not dispute this component. <br />Seriousness <br />The proposed penalty was based on minimal actual impact, and <br />minimal potential for impact. Regardless, required notification <br />did not occur. <br />I agree with the proposed impact assessment. There was no actual <br />damage and little potential impact. I believe the notification <br />is a part of the fault component, not seriousness. I propose to <br />reduce seriousness to $250.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.