My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE37206
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE37206
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:46:16 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:27:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/8/2001
Doc Name
NOV CV-2001-007 SANBORN CREEK CREEK MINE PN C-81-022
From
DMG
To
OXBOW MINING INC
Violation No.
CV2001007
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.
/
5
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
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />Oxbow Mining, Inc. <br />Sanborn Creek Mine- Permit Number C-81-022 <br />Notice of Violation # CV-2001-007 <br />James B. McArdle, Conference Officer op~'!~ <br />The Notice of Violation CV-2001-007 was issued on April 20, 2001. The NOV was issued for the <br />following problem; <br />'Failure to construct a light use road to control or prevent erosion or siltation and failure to <br />segregate topsoil from other soil materials in the construction of the light use road. <br />On June 29, 2001, an Assessment Conference was held at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, <br />Denver, Colorado. In attendance, in addition to the Conference Officer, was Mr. Joseph <br />Dudash and Mrs Sandra Brown representing the Division and Ms. Kathleen Welt of Oxbow <br />Mining, Inc.. Joseph Dudash presented testimony outlining the details of the violation as <br />outlined above. Topsoil was not salvaged in accordance with the law and was mixed with <br />subsoils during the sidecast method of road construction. No sediment control was incorporated <br />into any portion of the light use road. The mine operator was in constant contact with the <br />Division and the Division did recognize that an emergency did exist. <br />Ms. Kathleen Welt stated that TR 38 did indicate that topsoil and subsoil would be sidecast <br />during road construction. There is no definition in the law for the sidecast method. Much of the <br />road was constructed on steep slopes having little topsoil. No topsoil was segregated on the <br />flatter areas. Snow, severe weather conditions and topography during emergency road <br />construction limited the companies ability to construct the road with tighter specifications. <br />Sediment control was not incorporated into the road construction. <br />The Proposed Civil Penalty by the Assessment Officer for NOV CV-2001-007 is: <br />History $00.00 <br />Seriousness $1000.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith 0 <br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />HiStpN <br />A $0.00 penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />I concur with the Division that a violation did occur during road construction with respect to <br />topsoil and erosion control, however, I believe that it was moderate in seriousness, a penalty of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.