Laserfiche WebLink
w. • <br />of the permit area had been approved for such storage. <br />Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment <br />The penalty assessment proposed by the Division Assessment Officer <br />was: <br />History: $ 0.00 <br />Seriousness: 1,000.00 <br />Fault: 500.00 <br />Good Faith: - 0.00 <br />Total Proposed Penalty 1,500.00 <br />History <br />The history component was not disputed. <br />Seriousness <br />The $1,000.00 assessment for seriousness was based on the potential <br />for contamination due to the storage of liquid wastes in a non- <br />designated location and the potential for the operator to be <br />underbonded due to the fact that hazardous waste disposal costs <br />would not have been considered in the reclamation cost estimate. <br />I believe there was potential for such damage, due to the fact that <br />the Division was not able to evaluate the plan for proper noncoal <br />waste storage and handling. Given the concern with hydrologic <br />contamination, it is highly unlikely that the Division would have <br />approved such a storage facility to be located within a small area <br />exemption area. However, due to documentation submitted by the <br />operator indicating that hazardous waste was limited to one 30 <br />gallon drum of cleaning solvent, and the fact that the operator had <br />apparently taken precautions to insure that liquid wastes were <br />stored within the covered metal shed with a six inch lip around the <br />floor for secondary containment, I recommend a reduction of $250.00 <br />in the seriousness component. <br />Fault <br />I concur with the $500.00 assessment for fault. The regulations <br />clearly require that noncoal wastes be stored in designated <br />portions of the permit area. The operator was negligent in failing <br />to comply with this requirement with respect to storage of both <br />liquid and non-liquid noncoal wastes. <br />Good Faith <br />Consideration of good faith was not requested. <br />