ENFORCE33077 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III lllllllllllll 111 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-94-017 Notice of Violation C-94-017 was issued for "Failure to pass surface disturbed area through a sedimentation pond before leaving the permit area. Failure to maintain diversions that convey disturbed area drainage into a sedimentation pond." Barbara Pavlik issued the NOV to NCIG Financial on August 8, 1994 at the Coal Ridge i#1 Mine. The NOV was based on two previous inspections, July 29, and August 4, 1994. Ms. Pavlik explained that during her July 29 inspection, reclamation was nearing completion at the mine site. She observed that the majority of the reclaimed areas would not drain into the sedimentation pond and that some previously undisturbed areas had been disturbed. On August 4, Tony Waldron confirmed that the lack of drainage was a violation. The ditches leading into the pond had been removed and only about 10$ of the mine site, including the newly disturbed areas, would drain into the pond. Drainage from the disturbed areas would flow into a road ditch and off the permit area. Peter Matthies, representing NCIG, did not contest the violation, although he did want to make several points related to the facts. The inspection occurred while earthmovinq was taking place. At some point in time the ditches had to be removed in order to complete the reclamation. He contended that 75$ of the area would have drained into the pond, without the ditches in place. Furthermore, there was a ditch just below the base of the disturbance (including the pond) that would have caught runoff. However, it is located just off the permit area. There was considerable discussion regarding the additional acreage that was disturbed. For purposes of this NOV it will only be considered with respect to the lack of drainage control. Mr. Matthies objected to the proposed civil penalty. The proposed civil penalty was: History $50.00 Seriousness $1500.00 Fault $1000.00 Good Faith $0.00 Total $2550.00 Seriousness The ditches to the pond had been removed. It is questionable whether 75$ of the disturbed area would have drained into the pond as Mr. Matthies contends, although it could have been greater than 10$ as claimed by the Division. Fortunately, there was no precipitation during this time to test it one way or the other. Based on the earthmoving schedule and the inspection dates, it is estimated that there were approximately two to four