My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE36443
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE36443
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:47 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:04:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/5/2006
Doc Name
Settlement Agreement
From
DMG
To
Oxbow Mining LLC
Violation No.
CV2006001
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
Sandy pointed out that Oxbow should have at least contacted the Division about the change in the drilling <br />activity and discussed permitting options. <br />The Proposed Civil Penalty originally determined by the Assessment Officer for CO-2006-001 was: <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness (Significant) $500.00 <br />Fault (Negligence) $500.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith 0 <br />Failure to Abate $0.00 <br />Total proposed penalty $1,000.00 <br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the following <br />conclusions: <br />History <br />A $0.00 penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />I believe that although a violation to TR 51 did occur, the seriousness was insignificant. A TR was issued <br />for the drilling with no bond calculated, additional holes were allowed to locate the B seam. No resources <br />were damaged in the process. The operator had every intention, and past history indicates such, that the <br />drilling was to be followed up with the necessary completion and abandonment reports and a final as built. <br />Fault <br />I believe that a very low level of negligence is appropriate. The operator should have informed the <br />Division immediately of the field decision to complete one of the drill holes to the D seam to serve as a <br />utility bore hole. All other aspects of the technical revision were being followed. <br />Number of Davs Penalty Assessed <br />I concur with 1 day. <br />Good Faith. <br />Good faith is warranted for this violation due to the rapid response to the Division and cooperation in <br />getting this matter resolved. The operator was served the notice of violation on January 27, 2006 and a <br />minor revision was submitted to the Division 3 days later. The first adequacy review was provided to the <br />operator on February 22, the operator responded by February 23. The second adequacy letter was <br />provided to the operator on March 6 and the operator responded to the Division by March 7, 2006. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness (Significant) $0.00 <br />Fault (Negligence) $250.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith $150.00 <br />Total Penalty $100.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.