Laserfiche WebLink
Civil Penalty Assessment <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $ 0.00 <br />Seriousness 500.00 <br />fault 1,000.00 <br />Good Faith 0.00 <br />Total $1,500.00 <br />History <br />The history component was not disputed. <br />Seriousness <br />Based on the fact that no damage occurred and the indication of Mr. Ranney <br />that there was minimal potential for damage, I recommend a reduction of <br />$250.00 to reflect the low end of the low/moderate seriousness range. <br />Fault <br />While acknowledging that waste disposal was not conducted in compliance with <br />the approved plan for some period of time, Mr. Mills indicated that he did not <br />feel the circumstances reflected reckless, intentional misconduct. In his <br />opinion, the problem resulted from unforeseen circumstances (an increased rate <br />of coal waste production) which the operator dealt with by temporarily storing <br />the waste in a controlled area with minimal potential for environmental harm, <br />and when equipment and manpower availability allowed, final disposal of the <br />temporarily stored material was initiated. <br />I agree that the circumstances do not appear to indicate a reckless or callous <br />disregard for the environment or the health and safety of the public. <br />However, it does appear that compliance with specific permit requirements was <br />given a lower priority than operational and production considerations. The <br />operator exhibited a high degree of negligence, bordering on intentional <br />conduct, by failing to implement operational changes in a timely manner to <br />insure that coal waste disposal would be conducted in full compliance with the <br />requirements of the approved permit. I propose an amount of $750.00 for <br />fault, as it is the maximum allowable for negligence and the minimum allowable <br />for fault greater than negligence. <br />Good Faith <br />Mr. Mills explained that TCC had initiated efforts to permit an additional <br />waste disposal area and was taking other precautions to insure that the <br />situation which led to the violation does not recur. He also pointed out that <br />the NOV abatement had been completed within the specified time period. While <br />the measures described would appear to be prudent, they do not meet the <br />