Laserfiche WebLink
SEITLIII~NT AGRBIIVILNT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-95-023 <br />Notice of Violation C-95-023 was issued for "Failure to construct drainage as approved in reclamation <br />plan, and failure to grade disturbed area as approved in reclamation plan". Susan Burgmaier issued the <br />NOV to Seneca Coal Company on October 16, 1995 for grading activities at the Seneca II-VJ Mine. The <br />NOV was based on an aerial inspection and subsequent follow-up. Ms. Burgmaier observed from the <br />aerial photograph that the reconstructed drainage channel in Pit B did not match the approved plan in the <br />permit. The reconfigured channel is straight, running a northeast to southwest direction. A segment of <br />it is lined with rip rap. The surrounding area has been topsoiled and seeded. The approved post-mining <br />plan is Exhibit 20-2 of the permit. It indicates two grass-lined, meandering drainages similar to the <br />pre-mining topography. Ms. Burgmaier had an overlay showing both the existing and approved drainages. <br />Roy Kara and Michael Altavilla, representing Seneca Coal Company, did not contest the NOV. They <br />referred to their November 1, 1995 letter and presented a map and slides showing the area. The <br />reconstructed drainage was aligned with the mining pits. Rip rap was placed in the channel in response <br />to concerns noted in a rill and gully inspection. Several of their field procedures will change as a result <br />of this NOV. <br />The proposed civil penalty was, as follows: <br />History $ 150.00 <br />Seriousness 1,000.00 <br />Fault 750.00 <br />Good Faith 0.00 <br />TOTAL $1,900.00 <br />HISTORY <br />There have been three NOV's at the Seneca II-W Mine during the past twelve months. <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. The drainage in question was regraded over one year ago. The channel <br />does not achieve approximate original contour. Additionally, there is no documentation showing the <br />reconstnrcted channel is in compliance with Rule 4.05.3. Several modifications will probably be needed. <br />FAULT <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />GOOD FAITH <br />I am not recommending a good faith reduction. The NOV has not been abated at this point, however, the <br />operator is in contact with a consultant that will assist them with a plan. <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PENALTY $1,900.00 <br />M:\wa\ysw\SmdyBab <br />