Laserfiche WebLink
I believe it would have been prudent with a change in the operating procedures <br /> for the operator to check any possible secondary effects. Belt inspectors <br /> should be trained to look for environmental damage or another individual who <br /> is aware of the MLRD permit requirements should have inspected below the <br /> bel tl i ne. With the operator's commitment not to spill coal this should have <br /> been done on a regular basis, and especially with the additional load. <br /> However, the coal spillage was not identified until the MLRD/OSM inspection of <br /> May 24-26. I agree with the proposed penalty. <br /> Good Faith <br /> The operator requested a good faith reduction based on a summary they <br /> presented of their clean-up efforts. One man monitored the belt for two days <br /> to determine the exact cause of the spillage, a trackloader was brought in to <br /> clean under the belt and the clean-up was completed by several men. <br /> The original abatement deadline of June 15 was extended to June 22 for on the <br /> ground clean-up. The second part of the abatement required a permanent <br /> sediment control plan to oe submitted. The original abatement for Step 2 was <br /> extended"from July 1 to July 15, because the operator had other obligations to <br /> attend to. <br /> Based on the information presented in the conference it appears the operator <br /> took prudent measures to abate the violation, but I do not think a good faith <br /> reduction is appropriate. <br /> Final Civil Penalty <br /> History $ 50.00 <br /> Seriousness 500.00 <br /> Fault 500.00 <br /> Good Faith 0.00 <br /> TOTAL 0= <br /> /scg <br /> 8346F <br />