My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE24737
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE24737
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:23 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:47:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/7/1993
Doc Name
ANIMAS/HELEN MINE PN C-82-055 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS NOVS C-93-045 C-93-046 C-93-00 C-93-051 C-93-05
From
DMG
To
ENERGY FUELS MINING CO
Violation No.
CV1993051
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
r ~. . <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-051 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-051 was issued for "Failure to place <br />and/or store non-coal waste in a controlled manner in a <br />designated portion of the permit area." Dan Hernandez, <br />representing the Division, explained that this NOV applied <br />principally to the area east of the refuse pile and north of the <br />water tanks and additional areas include the SPCC-bermed area, <br />the East portals area and the substation area. These areas were <br />in violation of Rule 4.11.4. There was no non-coal waste <br />disposal area approved in the permit. <br />Al Weaver, representing Energy Fuels Mining, did not contest the <br />fact of the violation. He was not aware of Rule 4.11.4 requiring <br />designated disposal areas. In the area east of the refuse pile, <br />there was approximately 4 truckloads of waste that was left there <br />by Sundance Coal, the previous owner. He explained that only a <br />small portion of the remaining materials would be classified as <br />non-coal waste. Some of the materials could be salvaged or <br />recycled. <br />Mr. Weaver did want to discuss the proposed penalty. It was: <br />History $200.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $950.00 <br />History <br />There was no discussion regarding this component. <br />Seriousness <br />The basis of the proposed penalty was that the situation <br />constitutes low/moderate significance. Excess noncoal waste <br />creates minor environmental hazard, but also creates additional <br />bonding liability. <br />I believe the situation is of low significance. It seems to me <br />to be more of a permitting oversight than an environmental <br />concern. There were no hazardous materials, and there was a <br />possibility some of the materials could be salvaged or recycled. <br />I propose to reduce this component to $250.00. <br />Fault <br />There was no discussion regarding this component. <br />Good Faith <br />The operator requested an <br />12,1993 for the abatement <br />non-coal waste and it was <br />feel this is the shortest <br />is recommended. <br />Settlement Agreement Pena <br />extension to May 19, 1993 from May <br />deadline. The operator removed all <br />terminated on June 10, 1993. I do not <br />time possible. No good faith reduction <br />Lty Proposed $700.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.