ENFORCE23247 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment The penalty assessment proposed by the Division Assessment Officer was: History: 5 0.00 Seriousness: 250.00 Fault: 750.00 Good Faith: 0.00 Total Proposed Penalty: _t QgQ =_ History The history component was not disputed. Seriousness Tom Wainright of Peabody stated that the spillway project had been a low priority due to the fact that the pond had never spilled over the existing emergency spillway riser, and the conduit spillway was designed to safely handle the 100-year, 24-hour storm event, rather than the required 25-year, 24-hour event. From a practical standpoint, the existing spillway system was fully functional. The Division representatives did not dispute this contention. As a result, it is my opinion that the potential for any environmental damage or safety hazards due to the violation is insignificant and I recommend that the penalty for seriousness be reduced from 5250.00 to 50.00. Fault It is tr,;e that the operator was nearly one year late in implementing the design change specified by the Division memorandum of May 15, 1991. Had the operator submitted the revision application earlier in the spring or summer of 1991, it is cossible that the work could have been completed by the September 1 deadline. The fact that the revision application was not submitted until August 22, 1991 reflects that the operator did not respond as promptly to the revised regulation as was warranted by the notification. However, it also appears that the operator did intend to complete the spillway construction during the 1992 field season, but had ranked it as a relatively low priority due to the fully functional status of the existing spillway. A D-5 dozer which was needed to complete the spillway work was being used on higher priority drainage work at the Seneca II-ld Mine, several miles away from the Seneca II Mine. The operator was under the impression that the Division would not issue an NOV as long as the spillway was completed during the 1992 field season. More specific communication from the Division regarding the allowable time frame for completion once the revision was approved might have prompted Peabody to give a higher priority to the project. Based on the above considerations, I recommend a reduction from 5750.00 to `5500.00 for fault, with the 5500.00 amount based primarily on the lack of timeliness shown by the operator in their initial response to the May 15 notification.