1989-07-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOV C-89-013 NOV C-89-013 was written for "coal from the conveyor belt spilling below the belt where a small area exemption had been granted". Mr. Stevens explained that no sediment control was required below the conveyor belt, because Mid-Continent had stated that there would be no coal spillage. The small area exemption approval was based on this condition. During Mr. Stevens ' inspection on May 24-26, 1989, he observed a considerable amount of coal below the belt. He showed slides of the area. This was in violation of the permit requirement and the performance standards. The representatives from Mid-Continent, Inc. did not contest the fact of the violation, but they did disagree with the proposed civil penalty. The proposed civil penalty was: History $ 50.00 Seriousness 500.00 Fault 500.00 Good Faith 0.00 TOTAL History There has been one NOV during the past twelve months that is no longer in administrative proceedings. Seriousness The operator felt the damage was moderate and duration short. The proposed civil penalty reflects this-, The coal had spilled a week or two before the inspection. Although there is no evidence the coal fines drained into Dutch Creek, the potential for this occurrence was evident. I agree with the proposed penalty. Fault A reduction in fault was requested. The operator stated that in an effort to reduce the sediment load in the mine water discharge at Point 016 they were pumping additional water onto the conveyor belt. The coal on the belt was already saturated and there had never been a problem in the past so they didn 't expect there to be any spillage or other problems as a result of the additional load. The belt inspectors were not trained to look for environmental damages such as the spilled-coal .