My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE27238
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE27238
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:55 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:33:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/16/1986
Doc Name
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR NOV C-86-041 C-86-042 AND C-86-043
From
MLRD
To
WEST ELK COAL CO INC
Violation No.
CV1986041 42 43
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.
/
9
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
JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR <br />NOV C-86-041 <br />NOV C-86-041 was written for "failure to construct and maintain drainage <br />control as planned". The location of the NOV was the diversion ditch on the <br />southeast corner of the underground development waste pile. According to the <br />approved plan two ditches were to be installed, one for undisturbed drainage <br />and one for the disturbed area. Only one ditch had been installed and this <br />ditch had breached. At the time of the inspection, there was no water flowing <br />onto the undisturbed area; however, there was evidence of sediment deposition <br />in Tom Schreiner's slides of the area. <br />The operator contested the fact of the NOV claiming that the breach was caused <br />by a contractor and that no environmental damage had occurred. I feel these <br />factors affect the proposed civil penalty, but that a violation did occur. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History E 0.00 <br />Seriousness 500.00 <br />Fault 500.00 <br />Good Faith -250.00 <br />TOTAL ~750.QII <br />History <br />Seriousness <br />The operator contested the proposed civil penalty. A contractor had been <br />hired to construct the second ditch and incorrectly breached the existing <br />ditch. Before that, all drainage was passing through the sediment pond. The <br />contractor had worked the area three days prior to the inspection. Therefore, <br />the duration of the violation was short.. Very little sediment was observed <br />off-site. <br />I propose to reduce the seriousness factor by E250.00 because the duration of <br />the penalty was short, not moderate as proposed, and the extent was small. <br />Fault <br />The operator requested a reduction in the fault component. All flow was going <br />to the sediment pond until the contractor incorrectly cut the ditch. I feel <br />this represents a low degree of negligence; and therefore, I propose to reduce <br />the penalty to E250.00. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.