Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-95-001 <br />Notice of Violation C-95-001 was issued for "Failure to divert surface runoff from CRDA Nl <br />to stabilized channels off the refuse pile which will safely pass the runoff ti'Om a 100-year, <br />24-hour precipitation event." Erica Crosby sent the NOV to Powderhor Coal Company on <br />January).l;'~995. The NOV was observed during her January 1 I, 1995 inspection. She saw <br />water ponding on the first and second benches of the Coal Refuse Disposal Area NI <br />(CRDA). There was approximately 100 gallons of water on the second bench. The amount <br />of water on the first bench was less, but no precise estimate was given. The water was not <br />draining as designed to the 100 year diversion ditches, although there was a small trickle <br />from the ponded water on bench 2 to the diversion. A berm had been built nn the outside of <br />bench 1 to prevent water from overflowing. On both benches there was earthen material <br />blocking the flow from the collection ditch into the diversion ditches. <br />Mr. Larry Reschke, representing Powderhom Coal Company, did not contest the fact of the <br />violation, but he felt the penalty was assessed too high. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $100.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1350.00 <br />Seriousness <br />Mr. Reschke felt the seriousness was low. Drainage on bench 2 was trickling into the <br />diversion ditch, and he stated that it would not overtop the collection ditch. He claimed there <br />was little or no chance for damage. <br />Based on the evidence presented by Ms. Crosby it appeared to me that if there were <br />precipitation, the potential for water overtopping both of the ditches was high. Furthermore, <br />there was standing water in the ditches. This creates a potential stability issue. <br />1 agree with the proposed penalty. <br />Fault <br />The proposed penalty states, "this matter was apparently discussed during a previous <br />inspection, but not corrected". <br />Mr. Reschke felt that the above statement connotes that Powderhom Coal ignored the <br />comments in the October inspection report which was not we. He stated that Powderhom <br />had conducted as much work as weather conditions would allow after the problem was noted <br />