ENFORCE30352

• Permit No: C1981022
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 2/28/1994
• Doc Name: SOMERSET MINING CO VIOLATION HISTORY PN C-81-022
• From: J E STOVER & ASSOC
• To: DMG
• Violation No.: CV0000000
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

:-
J. E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES
2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 101
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506
PHONE: [phone], FA% 242-7908
NINE ENGIN66RING
NINE RHCLAMATION
February 23, 1994
S. S. Shuey
Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Somerset Mining Compa:.y
Violation History
Permit C-B1-022
Dear Mr. Shuey:
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii
ass
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION MANAGE-UiNT
RECFI`/EC
FEB 2 g )994
L~7'IS ~~ ~
~ C. Pnmer~~~ c Lccicny
The Division has verbally advised Somerset that it is reviewing
Somerset's violation history to determine if a pattern of
violations exist and if the determination is affirmative, the
Division may issue a show cause order in accordance with Rule
5.03.3. On Thursday, February 17, 1994, representatives of
Somerset met with Division personnel to discuss this matter.
During the meeting Somerset made a commitment to the Division to
improve its compliance record by taking a proactive approach to
compliance issues.
Somerset does not dispute the fact that seven Notices of Violation
were issued during the 12-month time period from October 1, 1992 to
September 30, 1993. The Division has vacated all of the
violations. Part of the reason so many violations were issued to
Somerset is the Division took a more aggressive approach to
enforcement during 1993. In 1992 and 1993 the Division issued 49
and 158 notice of violaticns respectively. Clearly tha Division's
approach to enforcement did change in 1993. The following
narrative presents Somerset's explanation of the violations:
NOV C-92-033 ISSUED 10-30-92
This violation was issued for failure to maintain sediment control.
The problem occurred when Somerset was in the process of improvinq
its sediment control system. Anew large sediment pond was being
constructed to replace a series of eight small ponds that were
located throughout the site. During the construction process, one
of the eight ponds located near the new larger pond was out of
service about a week before the new large pond was in service. No
run-off left the site. Had run-off left the site it would have
been coursed through existing alternative sediment control (silt
fences) located along the road leading into the site. This