1983-11-22_ENFORCEMENT - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 11/22/1983
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎ CV-83-027
• Violation No.: C-83-027
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Doug Bowman -2- July 8, 1982
With regard to N.O.V. 82-26, there are two points that need to be addressed.
First, the Act requires that debris be disposed of in a manner designed to
prevent contamination of ground waters or surface waters. In order to
comply with this requirement, most mines have identified specific areas for
the storage of usable material and the disposal of debris. During the course
of an inspection, any material that is found in drainages or in streams -
a place where it obviously does not belong - can be presumed to be debris.
That is, it is material that is being discarded. Observations at mines in
the state have found such debris scattered about the sites, in drainages and
in undisturbed areas, and problems have resulted. An inspector is not always
in a position to distinguish between debris and something of value that
has been misplaced. The inspector's observations and subsequent course of
action in this case was consistent with previous similar cases.
The second point is whether N.O.V. 82-26 should stand based on the information
presented in the Assessment Conference. During the Assessment Conference,
it was established that the material placed in Coal Creek consisted of coal
fines mixed with snow and conveyor belt rollers that were accidentally
picked up by a loader during snow removal. The material did not consist of
trash, oil and grease, acid material, etc. Also, there was a berm breached,
but no other problems. Mid-Continent pointed out that it was common practice
for them to conduct a spring clean-up to collect such material that had been
lost during the winter and put it back in storage. The berm also was fixed.
The Division did not present evidence indicating that environmental damage
resulted from this activity or that this activity had potential for developing
into a problem. Based on this information presented at the conference, the
Division is vacating N.O.V. 82-26 with a caution to the operator to take
necessary steps to prevent this situation from developing into a problem.
In the case of N.O.V. 82-28, there was no issue regarding the fact of the
violation. Both parties agreed that the violation did occur. The discussion
focused upon the proposed civil penalty assessment.
The Division proposed a civil penalty assessment of $2,500.00. An assessment
of $750.00 was proposed for the fault component and $1,750.00 was proposed
for the seriousness component. The $750.00 assessment for fault should stand.
Mid-Continent took a calculated risk by disposing of the material in the
manner it did. The problem could have been averted by anticipating such a
snow buildup and leaving the area to the east, above the meadow, available
for snow. There also may have been other ways to avert the problem. -
Discussion about the seriousness component focused upon the Division's
collection of evidence that would document the degree of actual or potential
damage. Although the inspector's observations and slide presentation
adequately documented the problem, there was not evidence presented that
quantified the level of total suspended solids and other constituents added
to the stream on the day of the violation. Data collected by Mid-Continent
the following day indicated a relatively low level of total suspended solids
and other constituents. Without the comparative evidence from the day of the
violation, it is difficult to assess the extent and duration of damage. Given
this situation, the penalty is being reassessed for duration and extent to a
level less than the maximum. A reduction to $750.00 is being proposed for
seriousness. The total civil penalty recommended for this violation is $1,500.00.