HYDRO27034 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In consideration of the comments offered by WFC's representatives, I was preliminarily persuaded that the 4 day multiplier was inappropriate. It was RlY opinion that the history, seriousness and fault components were proper, but that the daily multiplier should be reduced. Rule 5.04.3 (4)(c) states; "The agreed penalty incorporated into the settlement agreement may vary up to 25 percent from the amount of proposed penalty, provided that such variance does not exceed E500 unless the Administrator (Division Director) approves a greater variance in writing". The Division Director, Fred Banta, upon reviewing my proposed settlement agreement, did not concur with my opinion and directed me to reconsider my proposal, In response to the Director's instructions, I reexamined and reconsidered the evidence possessed by the Division. During the conference, David Stout, environmental coordinator for WFC, submitted laboratory test results documenting the information available concerning levels of NALCO 8852 flocculent concentration in the sediment ponds and adjoining waterways. NALGO's industrial laboratory produced the data at WFC's direction, after WFC determined that NALCO alone could complete the analytical determinations. These results, listed on Table 11 of the First Quarter 1988 }{ydrologic Monitoring Report submitted by WFC, demonstrate that on March 3, 1988 Pond 0028 had a concentration of 53 ppm of NALCO 8852, This table also reports that Pond 0026 also had a concentration 65 ppm of NALCO 8852 on March 8, 1988. Pond 002, sampled on March 6, 1988, was found to have a concentration of 47 ppm of NALCO 8852 on March 6, 1988. Because WFC continued to release water from the ponds throughout this period of time, waters exceeding the LC50 toxicity levels for Trout by two orders of magnitude were released into the natural waterways, in conflict with NALGO's own recommendations contained on their Material Safety Data Sheet for NALCO 8852 Coagulant. Based upon reexamination of these laboratory test results, submitted by the company, it appears that the originally proposed 4 day multiplier may actually have understated the number of days during which the violation continued, Therefore, I have amended my preliminary opinion, and have found that the proposed 4 day multiplier should not be modified. It was also RU' preliminary opinion, as stated in the conference, that WFC's abatement of the flocculent release appeared to have occurred in the shortest possible time following their discovery of the potential violation. Further, I felt that WFC had expended significant effort and went to considerable expense pursuing abatement of the problem prior to the April 5, 1988 issuance of the CO. Based upon the concurrence of the agency representatives present at the conference, it appears WFC has been attempting to coordinate response to all agencies' concerns. It was my preliminary opinion that WFC's efforts represented an extraordinary effort, for which I proposed to apply a E500 reduction to the proposed civil penalty to reflect their good faith effort. After reviewing my original proposed settlement agreement, the Division Director declined to concur with my proposal for good faith, Fred Banta suggested that ceasing use of the flocculent in a timely manner was an appropriate response in this situation, not an extraordinary effort on WFC's part. Further, he volunteered that an extraordinary effort might have included a more significant action, such as cessation of water release from the ponds into the natural waterways,