My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE27697
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE27697
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:35:13 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:42:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
12/8/1997
Doc Name
SENECA II-W C-82-057 NOV CV-97-015
From
DMG
To
SENECA COAL CO
Violation No.
CV1997015
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.
/
6
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 />The operator wanted to pump rather than clean the screen of the riser, however, the floating <br />pump was not working, and three other pumps were ruined trying to pump the sediment laden <br />water out of the pond. The riser is located 25 feet from the dam embankment, unplugging this <br />riser could pose a danger to company personnel. Brad Brown went into the pond and was able to <br />remove some of the debris from the riser screen allowing some sediment laden water to flow <br />through the riser on September 26. <br />The spillway was built fora 100 year event assuming the riser was also working. The pond had <br />recently been cleaned to 10 feet below the riser opening. Sediment from the rain events filled the <br />pond back to the top of the riser. Periodic inspections and maintenance had been occurring on <br />schedule. <br />After heazing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />History <br />I concur with the penalty. <br />Seriousness <br />I believe that the violation was moderate in seriousness, not severe. The impoundment was <br />designed for a much lazger storm event than was required. The pond was constructed with an <br />oversized emergency spillway which was functioning properly. The operator had employees on <br />site taking immediate action to correct the problem. Failure of the dam seemed to be unlikely. <br />Fault <br />I concur that the fault was negligence, however, I do not believe that the fault is at the high end <br />of negligence. Periodic maintenance and inspections were occurring in a timely fashion. The <br />pond was not under designed for the conditions on the site. The operator was taking steps to <br />correct the problem once the problem was noted. I place the level of fault at mid level. The <br />operator could have prevented the problem with the riser by designing a better trash rack or <br />anticipating that a rack could be plugged and providing a safe method for maintenance. There <br />was no safe method for accessing the riser, such as a walkway, in the event an emergency <br />cleaning was necessary. <br />Number of Days Penaltv Assessed <br />I concur with the number of days. <br />Good Faith. <br />I concur that a good faith credit is not appropriate. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.