My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE32627
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE32627
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:31 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:26:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/15/1985
Doc Name
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOV C-85-003 AND NOV C-85-004 NEW ELK MINE WYOMING FUEL CO PN C-01
From
MLRD
To
WYOMING FUEL CO
Violation No.
CV1985003
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
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT <br />FOR <br />NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV) C-85-003, WYOMING FUEL COMPANY <br />~~ <br />At the assessment conference the fact of the violation was not contested. <br />Civil penalty was proposed by the Division staff as follows: <br />History <br />Seriousness <br />Fault <br />TOTAL <br />$ 50.00 <br />500.00 <br />500.00 <br />,05 .00 <br />Considerable discussion occurred regarding seriousness and fault. <br />Seriousness <br />Division staff believe that runoff diverted out of the collection ditch as a <br />result of this violation would cross the road and then enter directly into the <br />Purgatoire River via a drainage way. Mr. Kolin contends that although the <br />water would be diverted out of the collection ditch that it would then flow <br />back into that same ditch after the blockage, and thus, be captured by the <br />sediment pond. This difference of opinion centers on the exact slope and <br />grading of the road in the vicinity of the ditch blockage. Neither the <br />Division nor the Company took any actual measurements which would prove the <br />precise direction of flow. Because of this difference of opinion and the lack <br />of conclusive evidence, I am reducing the seriousness to X250.00. <br />Fault <br />Although the Company argued that fault set at X500.00 was higher than it <br />should be, it my conclusion that the mid-range for negligence at X500.00 is an <br />appropriate level given the circumstances surrounding this particular <br />violation. The permittee and individua]s working at the mine should be aware <br />that blockage of ditches used in sediment control is strictly contrary to <br />requirements. <br />Summary <br />The civil penalty as proposed by the settlement agreement is as follows: <br />History $ 50.00 <br />Seriousness 250.00 <br />Fault 500.00 <br />TOTAL 800.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.