My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE37973
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE37973
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:46:48 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:50:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981048
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
TRINIDAD BASIN MINING FORMAL HEARING
Violation No.
CV1984110
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.
/
26
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 />Justific <br />n <br />t for NOV C-84-72 <br />At the assessment conference the operator indicated that he thought <br />that the necessary certifications had been done and that they could be <br />provided. For this reason, the assessment was held open for an additional two <br />weeks. Having received no information to the contrary, I must uphold the <br />violation and thus propose a civil penalty based on the assessment <br />conference. The Staff proposed a civil penalty as follows: <br />History $ 350.00 <br />Seriousness $ 815.00 <br />Fault $ 750.00 <br />TOTAL 1,975.00 <br />There was no evidence or discussion which leads me to believe that the <br />proposed settlement agreement should be any different than the civil penalty <br />proposed in the June 9, 1984 letter to Mr. Vance Mills from Jim Herron. Thus, <br />I am proposing a civil penalty of $1,975.00. <br />fi <br />Wino inc. <br />The fact of this violation was contested by the operator believing that <br />he had attempted to comply, but had failed to get accurate reaction from the <br />coal staff to complete the compliance. I do not believe this to be the case, <br />therefore, I uphold the violation. On the other hand, the arguments made for <br />vacation of violation do have a bearing on the civil penalty. The staff <br />proposes a civil penalty as follows: <br />History $ 350.00 <br />Seriousness $1,000.00 <br />Fault $ 500.00 <br />TOTAL 1,850.00 <br />The justification for the seriousness component in Mike Savage's memo <br />dated July 3, 1984, was not refuted at the assessment conference. As to the <br />question of fault, the operator believes that he was not negligent. I concur <br />that the negligence is less than that proposed and thus I am proposing to <br />reduce the fault to $250.00. The total settlement penalty proposed is: <br />History $ 350.00 <br />Seriousness $1,000.00 <br />Fault $ 250.00 <br />TOTAL ~~ <br />/bow <br />Doc. No. 3458 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.