My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE32072
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE32072
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:17 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:12:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984062
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
SUMMARY OF EVENTS NOV 90-046 MINE 3 SILT FENCE
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
<br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />On 21 March 1990, Gary Fritz of the OSM, David Berry, and Jim <br />Stevens conducted an oversight inspection of Mine 3. During this <br />inspection, the pre-existing silt fence was in need of maintenance, <br />but was still functional. Mr. Berry argued to that effect, <br />convincing Mr. Fritz that the fence was not in bad enough shape to <br />warrant an NOV. CYCC agreed to maintain the fence when conditions <br />permitted (at the time of inspection there was some 18 inches of <br />snow still present). <br />During both April and May, the fence was repaired and <br />maintained as well as was possible. During this period, Mr. Berry <br />conducted a follow-up inspection of Mine 3, and indicated that the <br />silt fence would most likely need replacing, as it had begun to <br />seriously degrade under the windy conditions. CYCC conducted a <br />subsequent assessment of ground conditions above the fence, and <br />felt that a demonstration allowing removal of the fence was a <br />viable alternative. This option was discussed with Mr. Berry, but <br />due to the complications involved with the SAE immediately adjacent <br />it was decided that the area would be subjected to undue scrutiny. <br />A second option, involving the replacement of certain segments <br />of the fence where the potential for problems was greater, was <br />discussed with Mr. Berry in June. At that time, Mr. Berry indicated <br />that he would have to defer in making a decision until he was able <br />to walk the area again to assess ground conditions. Mr. Berry was <br />unable to conduct this assessment until 26 July. At this time, it <br />was his opinion that the entire fence should be replaced. CYCC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.