My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-09-22_ENFORCEMENT - C1981012 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Coal
>
C1981012
>
2008-09-22_ENFORCEMENT - C1981012 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:36:28 PM
Creation date
9/22/2008 3:52:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
9/22/2008
Doc Name
Notice of Proposed Amount of Civil Penalty
From
DRMS
To
New Elk Coal Company, LLC
Violation No.
CV2008005
Email Name
SB1
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
New Elk Mine <br />NOV No. CV-2008-005 <br />Proposed Civil Penalty <br />Seriousness <br />According to the inspection report, water had overtopped the berm recently. Based on this statement, <br />the duration of the violation is considered short. The extent of damage is small. Two gullies were <br />created that caused the deposition of processing waste on the reclaimed slope below the gullies. The <br />extent is considered low. $250.00 is proposed for seriousness. <br />Fault <br />The inspection report notes that it had been raining extensively during the inspection and several days <br />before the inspection. Ground conditions were wet and it would not have been advisable to take <br />equipment onto the pile during such wet conditions. However, the pile is inspected on a regular basis <br />and preventative maintenance could have prevented the breached berm. A moderate amount of <br />negligence, $500.00, is proposed for fault. <br />Good Faith <br />Photos submitted by the operator indicate the violation has been abated. However, the Division has not <br />inspected the site to confirm that the NOV has been abated. A good faith reduction may be warranted, <br />but I would prefer to have the Division inspect the site before granting a good faith reduction. The <br />operator will have the opportunity to get a good faith reduction if they request an assessment <br />conference.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.