My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE32779
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE32779
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:36 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:30:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/7/1993
Doc Name
SOMERSET MINE C-81-022 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOV C-93-032
From
DMG
To
SOMERSET MINING CO
Violation No.
CV1993032
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.
/
4
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
r <br />r <br />rate and the measured TSS level, contribution of additional <br />suspended solids to the North Fork of the Gunnison would probably <br />have been undetectable. Given these considerations, I believe a <br />reduction from the °significant" to the "low/moderate" seriousness <br />category is warranted, and I propose $750.00 for Seriousness. <br />Fault <br />The proposed assessment reflected a degree of fault greater than <br />negligence, based on the Operator's knowledge of a problem in <br />meeting the TSS standard. Exceedances in the third and fourth <br />quarter of 1992 were documented in the Operator's Annual Hydrologic <br />Report. Mr. Wright indicated that the company was indeed aware of <br />the problem, but had initiated measures to correct the problem. He <br />conceded that initial attempts to address the problem by adding <br />flocculent to an underground sump prior to discharge to the surface <br />pond were not successful, but that steps were being taken to re- <br />route water within the mine to provide for greater settling time <br />underground at the time of the Division's inspection. _ <br />I do not believe the record demonstrates wilful, intentional <br />conduct. Apparently, the Operator was aware of the problem and had <br />initiated certain efforts to correct it. However, the degree of <br />diligence in following through on these efforts and insuring <br />compliance in a timely manner would appear to have been less than <br />commendable. In this regard, negligence is indicated, and I <br />propose a penalty of $500.00. <br />Good Faith <br />The Assessment Officer's allowance of $250.00 for Good Faith was <br />not disputed. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty Proposal......$1100.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.