Laserfiche WebLink
Total $1550.00 <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C -93 -091 <br />Notice of Violation C -93 -091 was issued for "Failure to maintain <br />the perimeter ditch along Coal Creek, which conveys flow to pond <br />001, in accordance with approved designs ". Reference was also <br />made to the Disney Creek diversion. Dave Berry issued the NOV at <br />the Coal Basin Mines on June 17, 1993 to Mid - Continent Resources. <br />Tony Waldron, representing the Division in the assessment <br />conference, said there were several locations along the perimeter <br />ditch where design configurations were not maintained. <br />Measurements of the perimeter ditch were presented which showed <br />locations where the ditch did not meet the design criteria. The <br />measurements were taken by Tony Waldron and Dave Berry of the <br />Division Gary Fritz from the Office cf Surface Mining and Lew <br />Thompson from MCR. Also the Disney Creek diversion next to the <br />Sutey Refuse Pile was not maintained, although the Division could <br />not find any design criteria for it. The ditch was downcut <br />approximately 2 feet deep for a length of abut forty feet. <br />Greg Lewicki and Diane Delaney represented MCR. Mr. Lewicki <br />presented another set of measurements which showed the perimeter <br />ditch would carry the design flow. The measurements were thought <br />to have been taken at the same location the Division's <br />measurements were taken. There was some discrepancy, because all <br />of their measurements showed the ditch to be in compliance. The <br />measurements were taken July 19, 1993, one month after the <br />Division's measurements were taken. With respect to the alleged <br />Disney Creek diversion, Ms. Delaney explained that it is a <br />natural drainage. It is not a mine ditch and as such there is <br />not a violation. <br />Based on the information presented in the conference I do not <br />feel the Disney Creek "diversion" was properly cited since it is <br />a natural drainage. Although there is a discrepancy between the <br />two sets of measurements for the perimeter ditch, I will uphold <br />this part of the violation. The Division's measurements showed <br />the ditch to be out of compliance in only a few locations. The <br />majority of the ditch was within the design standards. MCR <br />representatives may not have measured in the exact same locations <br />as the Division and OSM representatives and their measurements <br />were taken a month later. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $50.00 <br />Seriousness $750.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Seriousness <br />