My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE23505
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE23505
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:45 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:27:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
12/16/1993
Doc Name
SENECA II-W MIEN PN C-82-057 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOV C-93-141
From
DMG
To
PEABODY WESTERN COAL CO
Violation No.
CV1993141
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.
/
7
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
<br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $1750.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $3250.00 <br />seriousness <br />PCC representatives objected to the reference to a "protected <br />structure". The oil well and tank battery were damaged, but they <br />were not designated as protective structures. Furthermore, the <br />real issue of damage is directed at the oil spill resulting from <br />the damage to the structures. <br />i believe both items, the damage to the oil facilities and the <br />oil that flowed into 006 Gulch as well as damage to the topsoil <br />resource, to a lesser degree, need to be considered. <br />I conclude severe damage did occur to the structures and there <br />was potential for severe damage resulting from the oil spill had <br />PCC not remediated the problem so quickly. I agree with the <br />monetary amount of the penalty. <br />Fa t <br />PCC questioned the statement that "this is not the first time <br />this operator has misjudged blasting conditions". Ms. Burgmaier <br />had observed a bad blast a couple of years ago at the Seneca IIW <br />!Sine. She was under the impression both blasts were caused by <br />the same kind of geological conditions. PCC representatives <br />explained that the problem encountered a couple of years ago was <br />in different conditions that what caused this blast. The problem <br />was corrected immediately after that blast. Let the record <br />stand corrected. <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />Good Faith <br />I believe PCC took extraordinary measures in the shortest amount <br />of time to abate the violation. As described above these steps <br />included constructing the dikes downstream in 006 gulch, <br />rebuilding the berms around the tank battery, pumping all <br />remaining oil from the tanks, applying peat moss to the spills, <br />flushing the pad and gulch with water to remove all possible oil, <br />and cleaning the bottom of the gulch. Considerable expense and <br />effort went into the clean-up. A summary of costs, roughly <br />$34,500, was provided by PCC. They include the actual cost of <br />clean-up and not any lost production time for the employees doing <br />the work. I feel it is important to note that because of PCC's <br />rapid effort at correcting the spill, no oil went into the <br />sediment pond or off-site. A plan was submitted to prevent a <br />reoccurrence of the event. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.