My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE36084
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE36084
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:31 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:55:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/11/1998
Doc Name
SENECA II-W MINE PN C-82-057 NOV CV-97-023
From
DMG
To
SENECA COAL CO
Violation No.
CV1997023
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
Mr. Michael Altavilla and Mr. Brad Brown of Seneca Coal Company discussed the problems <br />encountered with dealing with the results of extreme precipitation events that caused the Pond <br />006 to fill with sediment to within 1 foot of the principal spillway. The company tried pumping <br />and digging sumps with no success due to the liquid nature of the saturated sediment. In an <br />attempt to dewater the pond, the company installed two rows of sediment fence down stream <br />from the dam and then cut the dam to a level approximately 1 foot below the principal spillway. <br />Seneca felt that cutting the dam was the only alternative available to bring the pond into <br />compliance and that this activity was necessary to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic <br />balance. Seneca recorded the work activities including the amount of water discharged and the <br />quality of that water. <br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />Histo <br />I concur with the penalty. <br />Seriousness <br />I concur that the violation is severe in that a lazge amount of water that exceeded the limitations <br />was discharged from the pond. All of the violations listed above did occur as stated. I propose <br />no change in the civil penalty for seriousness. <br />Fault <br />I do not concur that Seneca Coal Company intentionally violated the law. I believe that given all <br />of the problems with storm events, sedimentation problems, technical operational problems, <br />equipment breakdowns, etc. the company did believe that the cutting of the embankment was the <br />best approach to facilitate bringing the pond into compliance with the law. I propose that it is <br />more appropriate to consider fault at the high end of negligence. <br />Number of Days Penalt~Assessed <br />I concur with the number of days. <br />Good Faith. <br />I concur that a good faith credit is not appropriate. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $1,500.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed I <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total Penalty for NOV CV-97-023 $2,250.00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.