Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />-2- <br />Enforcement action was taken after observing these problems by writing a <br />Cessation Order to immediately cease discharge of material from the thickener <br />tank through Sediment Pond No. 006 resulting in discharge from Pond No. 006; <br />and to stop pumping water from the raw coal pile sump onto the coal pad which <br />resulted in this water entering the Purgatoire River diversion without <br />adequate sediment control. <br />The violation cited was a failure to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic <br />calnce, Act Section 120(2)(j) -Rule 4.05.1. <br />This penalty was assessed in accordance with the procedures set forth in MLRD <br />Rule 5.04.5. The dollar amounts were arrived at after consideration of the <br />regulations set forth in Rule 5.04.5 and consultation with other MLRD staff <br />inspectors. <br />Rule 5.04.5(2)(a) -History of Previous Violations <br />Rule 5.04.5 requires that $50.00 be assessed for each previous violation <br />issued within the past 12 months. <br />One violation C-84-136 issued on June 20, 1984, was issued within the <br />past year. Therefore, a penalty of $50.00 is assessed in this category. <br />History $50.00 <br />Rule 5.04.5(2)(b) - Seriousness of the Violation <br />This Rule requires that the assessment be based on the following three <br />categories, with a maximum penalty of $1,750.00. <br />1. Probability of Damage Occurring <br />At the time of the inspection, untreated water was flowing from the <br />coal pile into the river. It also appeared that water from <br />Sediment Pond No. 006 containing coal fines and floc materials had <br />recently been discharged from the emergency spillway of the pond <br />into the Purgatoire River. Therefore, some damage had occurred. <br />2. Duration of Damage <br />The time of the discharge from the sump was probably less than one <br />hour, while the overflow from the pond emergency spillway was <br />probably for less than four hours. Therefore, the duration was <br />short-term. <br />3. Extent of Damage <br />There was no evidence of any fish kill or major deposits of coal <br />fines in the river channel. Therefore, the extent of the actual <br />damage was probably slight. If the observed practices had <br />continued for a longer period, there is a possibility that more <br />