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 settling 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 />