Laserfiche WebLink
January 23, 1985 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> Mid-Continent Cessation Order C-84-084 <br /> Page Two <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 12 months prior to this <br /> Cessation Order, an assessment of $50.00 is recommended. <br /> B. Seriousness: <br /> It is likely that some damage occurred to natural resources as a <br /> result of this untreated discharge. The primary kinds of damage <br /> include minor topsoil contamination and an unquantifiable <br /> contribution of sediment to Dutch Creek. While the duration of <br /> this violation was not long after discovery, it was a continuous <br /> discharge and therefore significant. The likely extent of the <br /> damage was small given high background levels of total suspended <br /> solids in receiving streams and relatively minor ground surface <br /> areas which were contaminated by coal waste. An assessment of <br /> $1 ,400.00 was recommended for seriousness. <br /> C. Fault: <br /> Little fault can be assigned to the operator for the discharge of <br /> untreated water from the Mine No. 2 mantrip pad into the clean <br /> water diversion ditch. However, the discharge could have been <br /> avoided with careful anticipation of drainage problems associated <br /> with large amounts of snowfall . <br /> The operator was much more negligent for allowing contaminated <br /> water from the Mine No. 2 bin pad to enter the clean water <br /> diversion ditch. This should have been avoided with a berm which <br /> is called for in the approved permit. In addition, a culvert was <br /> placed in a location not authorized in the permit, which resulted <br /> in the untreated water being directed toward Dutch Creek. I <br /> recommend an over-all assessment for fault of $600.00. <br /> D. Duration of Violation: <br /> The inspector recommended an assessment for each six days of <br /> violation. Facts which emerged during the conference do not <br /> support this conclusion. The operator was informed of the <br /> violation on May 22, and the violation as noted was abated by May <br /> 23. The actual written Cessation Order was not issued by the <br /> inspector unitl May 24, 1984. I recommend an assessment for one <br /> day of violation. <br />