My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE26973
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE26973
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:44 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:28:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981018
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/15/1994
Doc Name
DESERADO MINE PN C-81-018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS NOV C-93-153 C-93-155 C-93-156 AND C-93-157
From
DMG
To
WESTERN FUELS - UTAH
Violation No.
CV1993154
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.
/
3
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
<br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-154 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-154 was issued for ^Failure to construct <br />and maintain diversions according to designs in the mine permit". <br />Larry Routten issued this NOV to Western Fuels Utah for the <br />Deserado Mine on December 16, 1993. He explained that the <br />permanent diversion on the east (NOV incorrectly says south) side <br />of the Refuse Disposal Area (RDA) #2-3 had downcut for a length <br />of 200 feet with vertical sides up to three feet deep. The <br />design specifications could not be located, but he was convinced <br />this ditch was designed as such. The diversion on the west, <br />northwest (not north as stated in NOV) side of RDA #4 was silted <br />in at the lower end, there was no defined channel. The berm was <br />still intact and there was no evidence of breaching. The permit <br />design for this ditch required 12 inch riprap for gradients <br />greater than 5~. No riprap was observed in the ditch. Pictures <br />of each area were shown. <br />Murari Shrestha and Jeff Dubbert, representing Western Fuels Utah <br />(WFU) agreed that there was no riprap in the diversion ditch <br />around RDA #4, although there was adequate drainage. Riprap is <br />not necessary to control erosion in the ditch, it is well <br />vegetated. They will submit a TR to eliminate this requirement. <br />Last summer they did have a silt problem in the lower end of the <br />ditch. All repair work for the two ditches was conducted <br />immediately and completed by December 17, 1993. WFU <br />representatives requested a good faith reduction. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $100.00 <br />Seriousness $250.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $600.00 <br />Seriousness <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />ault <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />Good Faith <br />The on-the-ground work was completed the day after the NOV was <br />issued. I believe this is the shortest time possible and <br />represents an extraordinary effort. Step 2 of the abatement <br />required WFU to install riprap on the RDA #4 diversion. WFU <br />representatives do not feel riprap is necessary and submitted a <br />TR on January 26, 1994. <br />I propose a $250.00 reduction for good faith. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty $350.00 <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.