Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br /> NOV C-93-086 <br /> Notice of Violation C-93-086 was issued for "Failure to conduct <br /> mining activities to minimize disturbance to the prevailing <br /> hydrologic balance; failure to maintain a permanent diversion <br /> structure. specifically, a hole had developed in the bottom of <br /> the Dutch Creek flume near its confluence with Coal Creek causing <br /> significant erosion into Coal Creek" . Tony Waldron issued the <br /> NOV on June 9, 1993 to Mid-Continent Resources (MCR) at the Coal <br /> Basin Mines. Tony explained that as result of the hole in the <br /> concrete flume material had washed from around the main support <br /> pillar flowing into Coal Creek. <br /> Diane Delaney and Greg Lewicki, representing MCR, did not feel <br /> this was a violation for the following reason. Rule 4.05. 3 (4) <br /> states, in part "Diversions shall be designed, constructed and <br /> maintained in a manner which prevents additional contributions of <br /> suspended solids to streamflow and to runoff outside the permit <br /> area, to the extent possible using the best technology currently <br /> available." They contended MCR was doing what they could to the <br /> extent possible. No evidence of cracking was observed last <br /> fall. The intense freeze/thaw of the past winter may have <br /> contributed to the break down of the concrete. After the crack <br /> occurred they took measures to prevent further erosion . For <br /> permanent repairs, they had to wait for low flow in Dutch Creek. <br /> Conveyor tubing from the No. 3 Mine was placed inside the <br /> concrete flume for further channel protection. Additionally, at <br /> the point of failure they poured a concrete pad, installed an I- <br /> beam and concrete pillar for support. <br /> I conclude a violation did occur. The diversions are to be <br /> maintained to carry the designed flow. I am not convinced MCR <br /> did everything possible to ensure the integrity of the structure <br /> using the best technology currently available. However, once the <br /> hole appeared they did take suitable measures to minimize damage. <br /> The proposed penalty was: <br /> Seriousness <br /> I agree with the proposed penalty. In spite of the operators <br /> efforts to minimize erosion, there was still a considerable <br /> amount. However, in comparison to the sediment levels in natural <br /> drainage the amount of additional sediment would be difficult to <br /> ascertain. <br /> Fault <br /> I agree with the proposed penalty. <br /> Good Faith <br /> Based on the information presented I believe a good faith <br /> reduction is warranted. MCR repaired the structure in the <br />