My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE33947
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE33947
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:09 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:57:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981015
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
9/26/1991
Doc Name
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Violation No.
CV1991007
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
~ ., <br /> <br />Justification of Settlement Agreement for C-91-007 <br />Conference Summar <br />NOV C-91-007 was issued for failure to inspect sediment ponds on a quarterly <br />basis or at such interval as approved, and failure to maintain report copies <br />at the mine site and submit copies to the Division. The NOV was issued in <br />response to an OSM Ten Day Notice. <br />David Berry, representing the Division pointed out in his presentation that <br />American Shield was conducting reclamation at the Fruita Mine under the terms <br />of a reclamation plan submitted to the Division. A previous Board Order <br />required American Shield to obtain a reclamation only permit, and application <br />for such permit had been made, but no permit has as yet been issued by the <br />Division. The quarterly pond inspections and reporting cited in the NOV were <br />not specifically addressed in the reclamation agreement under which American <br />Shield was conducting reclamation operations. The Division's position, as <br />represented by Mr. Berry, is that as operator of the Fruita Mine, American <br />Shield assumed responsibility for compliance with the performance standards of <br />the regulations. <br />Greg Lewicki, representing American Shield, indicated that he was under the <br />impression that compliance with the specific provisions of the reclamation <br />plan was all that was required, given the permitting status of the operation. <br />Mr. Lewicki stated that a pond inspection had been performed in February, <br />1990, and subsequently in March of 1991. The February, 1990 report was <br />included with the permit application submittal, and the March, 1991 report was <br />submitted to the Division on June 21, 1991, after being notified by the <br />Division of the requirement to perform the pond inspections and reporting. <br />The proposed civil penalty was <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $250.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Good Faith -$250.00 <br />Total $250.00 <br />Fact of Violation <br />I find that a violation did occur, although the situation is clouded by the <br />fact that the operator was conducting reclamation as approved by the Division, <br />without a permit. Nevertheless, I concur with the Division's determination <br />that American Shield, as operator of the Fruita Mines, was responsible for <br />operating in compliance with the Law and Regulations, including the sediment <br />pond inspection and reporting requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.