Laserfiche WebLink
All five notices have been through the appeal process, were upheld, and the operator has <br />signed any applicable settlement agreements. The status of the notices is now final. <br />Considering that prior to these notices, PWCC had not received a notice of violation at the <br />Seneca II-W Mine in quite some time; the problems cited in al] five notices are unrelated; and <br />that in two cases, extenuating circumstances led to PWCC's noncompliance, I do not believe <br />a pattern of violations exists at the Seneca II-W Mine. <br />Prior to the September 24, 1993 inspection, the last notice of violation at the Seneca II-W Mine <br />was written May 23, 1990. Given that PWCC operated the mine 3%z years in accordance with <br />the Rules and the approved mine permit, there is no evidence of a pattern of noncompliance. <br />The problems cited in all five notices are unrelated. NOV C-93-134 was a hydrologic structure <br />design standard; NOV C-93-135 was a haul road drainage problem; NOV C-93-135 was <br />administrative in nature; NOV C-93-141 was due to a deviant overburden blast; and NOV <br />C-93-143 was for a problematic location for storage of topsoil. PWCC has not demonstrated <br />a pattern of violations in terms of consistent disregard of any one requirement. <br />In two cases, there were extenuating circumstances which caused the problems cited. NOV <br />C-93-141 was written for damages incurred when problems arose with an overburden blast. <br />The cause of the errant blast was a pocket of incompetent material centered in the material <br />blasted. Mine personnel were unaware of the presence of the material. A review of the record <br />of the shot indicated that under normal circumstances, ie: blasting rock, the shot would likely <br />have been uneventful. NOV C-93-143 was written after Topsoil Stockpile N, situated on the <br />highwall side of the active pit, began sliding toward the open pit. The slide occurred along a <br />preexisting slip zone located beneath the stockpile. That combined with extremely wet <br />conditions at the site and the open pit below the stockpile contributed to the slide. Without <br />these additional mitigating factors, the problem probably would not have occurred. Since these <br />two instances were rare, catastrophic events, it is difficult to ascertain that these problems <br />contribute to a pattern of noncompliance. <br />Because the five violations cited were isolated departures from lawful conduct, I recommend <br />that the Division determine that there is not a pattern of violations at the Seneca II-W Mine, <br />and that PWCC not be issued an order to show cause why the permit should not be suspended <br />or revoked. <br />If you have any questions or need additional information to complete your review, please let <br />me know. <br />c: Steve Renner <br />Larry Routten <br />Gary Wendt, PWCC <br />SLB\1Yi093.WP <br />is ae ng 2 anuary , 1 <br />