Laserfiche WebLink
JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR <br />NOV C-86-042 <br />~NOV C-86-042 was written for "failure to ensure protection of the hydrologic <br />balance". Tom Schreiner explained that this NOV was directed at maintenance <br />problems at three different areas at the mine: 1) the lower waste pile <br />sediment pond; 2) the sediment pond near Old Bear No. 1 (MB-5); and, 3) the <br />drainage control at the coal conveyor. The operator contested the facts of <br />violation. <br />At the lower waste pile sediment pond, Mr. Schreiner felt that there would not <br />be enough storage for a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. Slides of the <br />pond showed a large volume of sediment. It had been noted in previous <br />inspection reports that the operator would clean it as soon as it was dry <br />enough. Mr. Conn explained that the cleaning had already started and this <br />could be seen in the slides. Tom Schreiner did not have any specific evidence <br />that the pond would not contain the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. I <br />do not feel there is sufficient evidence for this part of the NOV to uphold it. <br />The operator had failed to dewater the Bear No. 1 sediment Pond causing the <br />inflow ditch to back up and overflow into adjacent areas. Tom Schreiner <br />explained that the pond does not have a dewatering device and the operator is <br />supposed to pump the pond when it fills. Mr. Conn stated that the alluvial <br />water table had risen rapidly prior to the NOV being written and that most of <br />the water in the pond was alluvial inflow. This may affect the civil penalty, <br />but I feel that an NOV did exist. <br />Coal fines were in the pond spillway. Mr. Schreiner explained that the <br />operator had recently washed the conveyor and the fines had gone into the <br />spillway. Also, a pile of coal spilled under the conveyor bent outside the <br />berm designed to maintain drainage. Straw bales had been placed between the <br />coal spill and the North Fork River. Mr. Conn felt that the coal fines were <br />wind-blown which is normal during loading. Mr. Liddle stated that there was <br />more coal fines than usual and because of water spotting, it appeared to be <br />the result of washing the conveyor. Mr. Conn then agreed. I wilt uphold this <br />part of the NOV. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History E 0.00 <br />Seriousness 500.00 <br />Fault 250.00 <br />Good Faith 0.00 <br />TOTAL ;T56:Q6 <br />