My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE28845
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE28845
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:36:01 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:04:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984062
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
12/12/1990
Doc Name
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOV C-90-046 ENERGY MINE 3
From
MLRD
To
COLORADO YAMPA COAL CO
Violation No.
CV1990046
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.
/
5
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
History <br /> <br />There have been no NOV's or CO's during the previous year. <br />Seriousness <br />I propose to reduce this component to 4250.00. There was no evidence of <br />off-site damage. Some small rills and gullies were observed on the reclaimed <br />area. but there was little or no additional sediment in the ditch. Although, <br />the silt fence was the sole structure for runoff control, the vegetative cover <br />also served as an effective control. <br />Fault <br />I believe CYCC was negligent. A final check of the silt fence was not <br />conducted until the Division's inspection. Dave Berry explained that the <br />individual installing the silt fence had done similar projects last year, and <br />many problems were noted. CYCC agreed that there had been problems, but they <br />felt the problems had been resolved and he would do a good job. <br />Unfortunately, there were Droblems again. <br />Given this individual's Drevious job performance I believe it would have been <br />prudent to check the final job. Even if the individual had always done good <br />work, I think it would have been a good idea to check the silt fence after <br />completion without relying on the Division's inspection. <br />Good Faith <br />CYCC requested a reduction for good faith. After issuance of the NOV on <br />October 16, 1990 CYCC assigned an individual to repair the fence. The <br />individual worked double shifts. Repairs were started on October 17, 1990 and <br />they decided to reinstall the entire fence to ensure the structure would <br />function properly. Inclement weather delayed progress, but the fence <br />installation was completed by October 26, 1990. <br />I agree that this is rapid compliance. However, I find it incongruous that <br />CYCC could dedicate so much time to the fence once an NOV had been issued when <br />no one had the time to check the fence for two months after the original <br />installation. I do not believe a good faith reduction is appropriate for <br />completing a project that was supposedly done two months earlier. <br />Final Civil Penalty <br />History 40.00 <br />Seriousness 250.00 <br />Fault 500.00 <br />Good Faith -0:00 <br />TOTAL ~750~II <br />/ern <br />1970E <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.