Laserfiche WebLink
included photos of the Arkansas River showing its water running clear upstream of <br />the site and extremely turbid downstream of the site. <br />3. On June 14, 2018, the Division conducted an inspection of the site. Ron <br />Peterson was present during the inspection. During the inspection, the Division <br />observed a trench along the western edge of the haul road leading from the site <br />directly to the Arkansas River. Portions of the trench contained silty water and led <br />from the Operator's wash plant to the Arkansas River. Mr. Peterson admitted that <br />the trench had been used at least once to release discharge water from the site's <br />wash plant to the Arkansas River. Portions of the ditch had been dredged, with <br />material piled along its edges. The section of the trench closest to the river was not <br />holding water but still contained wet sediment. In the inspection report, the <br />Division informed Operator that the unauthorized discharges into the Arkansas <br />River constituted a possible violation for failure to minimize disturbances to the <br />prevailing hydrologic balance and a violation of the conditions of the permit. <br />4. According to the Division's inspection report, the release of sediment - <br />laden wastewater from the wash plant appeared to have been caused by the <br />Operator's failure to maintain sufficient capacity in the operation's settling ponds. <br />Two of the settling ponds were completely silted over at the time of the inspection. <br />The Operator was in the process of excavating one of the ponds during the <br />inspection and constructing a third settling pond. The Division observed no <br />evidence of continued discharge from the plant area. <br />5. During the inspection, the Division also estimated that the operation <br />had disturbed a total area of 177 acres, including 37.52 acres that were beyond the <br />permitted area. The off-site disturbances included at least one settling pond, the <br />ditch, a storage area north of the mine, the scale house, material and topsoil or <br />overburden stockpiles, haul roads, and 26.8 acres where sand was stockpiled <br />adjacent to a railroad loading dock. The Division determined the off-site damage to <br />be substantial and informed Operator that, given the size of the off-site <br />disturbances, it viewed the violation as possible failure to obtain a permit prior to <br />engaging in a new mining operation. <br />6. On July 12, 2018, the Division sent Operator a Reason to Believe a <br />Violation Exists letter. The letter identified the Operator's unauthorized release of <br />pollutants to the surface drainage system and affecting 37.52 acres outside of the <br />approved affected land boundary as the violations to be considered by the Board at <br />its August 22, 2018 regular meeting. <br />7. At the hearing, the Division presented testimony regarding the <br />violations. The mining plan provided for waste water from the operation to be <br />pumped into sealing ponds from which it would be pumped back to the wash plant <br />for use once it was clean. Two settling ponds, however, were filled with sediment <br />and one was entirely beyond the permitted boundary. The ditch leading from the <br />