My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35861
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35861
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:21 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:49:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/6/1993
Doc Name
NEW ELK MINE PN C-81-012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS NOVS C-93-011 C-93-038 C-93-039 C-93-040 C-93-043
From
DMG
To
BASIN RESOURCES
Violation No.
CV1993039
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.
/
3
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 />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-039 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-039 was issued for "Failure to minimize <br />adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance by: a) failing to <br />install a culvert in D11 where access road crosses it; b) failing <br />to route disturbed area drainage around coal silos to a sediment <br />pond rather to a clean water diversion; c) failure to prevent oil <br />and gas spills; and d) failing to protect stream buffer zone." <br />Mr. Mathews showed pictures of and described each location. They <br />are carefully explained in the April 5-9, 1993 inspection report. <br />Mr. Thompson did not contest the facts of the violation. He did <br />object to the fault component of the proposed penalty. The <br />proposed penalty was: <br />History $50.00 <br />seriousness $1750.00 <br />Fault $1000.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $2800.00 <br />The fault component was assessed for intentional conduct at <br />$1000.00. The reason was because coal deposition outside the <br />disturbed area appeared intentional. Mr. Thompson state that <br />they did not intentionally deposit coal outside the disturbed <br />area. He agreed that there were sloppy operating practices. New <br />supervisors had been hired that weren't aware of the performance <br />standards and were improperly monitoring the hourly people. He <br />stated they did not intentionally violate the law. it was caused <br />by a lack of knowledge. <br />I see no evidence to indicate that this was intentional conduct. <br />However, I do believe there was a lack of reasonable care, <br />bordering on reckless conduct. Cited in this violation are two <br />locations where undisturbed water was contaminated: 1. The access <br />road crossing the cleanwater diversion without a culvert; and 2. <br />the areas of coal spillage in vicinity of coal silos that drain <br />into undisturbed diversion D26 without passing through a sediment <br />pond or otherwise being treated. One of the first things new <br />employees need to be aware of is that all disturbed area drainage <br />must be treated by going through a sediment pond or other <br />approved methods. Another citation that I am concerned about in <br />this NOV are the open, nearly full drums of waste oil outside the <br />bermed area. An approved storage area was next to the location <br />where they were stored. They should have been inside the <br />adjacent bermed, designated area. Together, these were very <br />careless and what I would consider reckless operating practices. <br />I am not proposing a reduction in the fault component. <br />Settlement Agreement Proposed Penalty $2800.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.