My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE32646
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE32646
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:32 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:26:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/11/1993
Doc Name
ECKMAN PARK 1 & 2 MINE PN C-81-071 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOV C-93-080
From
DMG
To
COLO YAMPA COAL CO
Violation No.
CV1993080
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.
/
5
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
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-080 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-080 was issued for "Failure to maintain <br />adequate pond capacity to contain or treat the design 10-year, 24 <br />hour precipitation/runoff event. Failure to prevent discharge <br />from the emergency spillway." Dave Berry and Kent Gorham issued <br />this NOV on May 20, 1993 for Pond A at the Eckman Park Mine. Mr. <br />Gorham explained that they observed a small volume of water <br />puddling on the emergency spillway. Water was at the threshold <br />of the emergency spillway and the pond would not provide adequate <br />storage time if the 10-year, 24-hour storm event were to occur. <br />Marcus Middleton, representing Colorado Yampa Coal Company, <br />contended that the combination of water from the spoil springs, <br />snowmelt and precipitation exceeded the design storm event. No <br />data was available to support this contention however. <br />Furthermore, Mr. Mills stated that the intent of the pond is to <br />minimize water quality degradation from surface coal mining <br />operations. Samples of discharge showed that the water was in <br />compliance with water quality standards. A discussion of the <br />intent of the regulations and the necessity of performance <br />standards followed. <br />I agree that the intent of the regulation is to minimize water <br />quality degradation, however the performance standards, Rule <br />4.05.6(3), does require adequate capacity to contain the 10-year, <br />24-hour storm event. These are preventative regulations written <br />to avoid a problem before it occurs. As a conference officer I <br />do not have the authority to vacate an NOV because the intent of <br />the regulation was not violated. <br />The proposed penalty was: <br />History $o.oo <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $750.00 <br />Seriousness <br />The proposed penalty was based on the potential problems of <br />offsite sediment deposition and/or pond stability. There was no <br />actual damage resulting from this NOV and the potential seems <br />very small. The base conditions have changed since the pond was <br />designed in that the area flowing into the pond has been <br />revegetated and relatively small amounts of sediment flow into <br />the pond. Stability is not an issue, the emergency spillway was <br />designed to handle the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. I believe <br />the potential for damage is low and the penalty should be reduced <br />to $250.00. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.