Laserfiche WebLink
-8- <br /> NOV C-84-085 <br /> Drainage from the disturbed area near the warehouse was observed to <br /> have bypassed the warehouse pond (010) . The ditch leading to the <br /> sediment pond must better defined. <br /> Since ditches and culverts are designed to safely pass discharges less <br /> than or equal to the amount expected from a 10-year 24-hour storm <br /> event, it seemed likely that these breaches and excursions took place <br /> as a result of the large runoff events of the preceding week. The <br /> third citation related to a sediment pond which was observed to be <br /> filled with sediment beyond the design capacity. Given the extremely <br /> wet conditions, this sediment pond was completely inaccessible prior to <br /> and during the time of the inspection; therefore, it was not possible <br /> for the operator to have carried out the required maintenance work. <br /> This pond was cleaned prior to the onset of winter in October, 1983 <br /> The other 10 citations contained within NOV C-84-085 were supported by <br /> oral testimony, slides and photographs. The Director finds that the <br /> violation occurred, and the the NOV, as modified, is upheld. <br /> II. PENALTY ASSESSMENT <br /> A. History: <br /> Based on the fact that one violation was issued against <br /> Mid-Continent Coal Resources within the twelve months prior to this <br /> NOV, $50.00 is assessed. <br /> B. Seriousness: <br /> Despite the modification of the citations contained within this <br /> NOV, the seriousness of the violation remains significant. <br /> $1,325.00 for seriousness is assessed. <br /> C. Fault: <br /> This violation was avoidable with reasonable anticipation of <br /> hydrologic problems which would likely result from such heavy <br /> snowfall accumulations. The operator had commenced maintenance <br /> activities at several of the sediment control systems below the <br /> prep plant, prior to the arrival of the inspectors. The violations <br /> occurred because of too little maintenance too late. Nevertheless, <br /> given the fact that abatement operations were underway at the time <br /> of the inspection, an assessment for fault somewhat below the <br /> maximum for negligence is warranted. $700.00 for negligence is <br /> assessed. <br /> D. Good Faith; <br /> After the operator was notified about the violations in the <br /> vicinity of the prep plant, an intensive abatement effort was <br /> undertaken which resulted in elimination of the vast majority of <br /> the problems cited - well ahead of the abatement deadlines. In <br /> addition, several extraordinary abatement efforts were carried out, <br />