Laserfiche WebLink
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />Mountain Coal Company\West Elk Mine-C-80-007 <br />Notice of Violation # CV-99-015 <br />James B. McArdle, Conference Officer °~~V <br />The Notice of Violation CV-99-015 was issued on December 6, 1999 for the following reasons: <br />*Failure to conduct coal mining operations only as described in the approved application. <br />*Failure to provide a detailed and appropriate map describing the areal extent of the proposed <br />underground workings. <br />*Failure to obtain final approval before implementing a permit revision. <br />On March 14, 2000, an Assessment Conference was held at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 719, <br />Denver, Colorado. Mr. James Burnell presented testimony and documentation in the form of <br />maps regarding the Notice of Violation. Basically, mining development work had commenced <br />in a 48 acre salient of the B-seam which was currently not included in the permit as an <br />area that mining could occur. PR-O8 was in the process of being approved, which when <br />approved will allow for the continued development and mining of this 4H acre salient. The <br />Division staff felt that the matter was a simple oversight on the part of the company, not willful <br />disregazd for the maps or plans. Mountain Coal Company cooperated in providing a detailed <br />map showing the current mine development activities including the area in question. <br />The Proposed Civil Penalty by the Assessment Officer for NOV CV-99-004 is: <br />History $50.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $500.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith 0 <br />Ms. Christine Johnston, Permitting Specialist with Mountain Coal Company provided testimony <br />regarding the actions of the Company. Mountain Coa] Company thought that since the mining <br />extension was within the permit area, the Company could do minor adjustments to the <br />underground configuration. The PR-O8 adequacy review had been satisfied and everyone was <br />waiting for the USFS response. <br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />SLO <br />A $50.00 penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />After considerable discussion, I fee] that the level of seriousness in this instance should be set at <br />insignificant and that $U.00 would be appropriate for reasons as outlined by the company and the <br />