Laserfiche WebLink
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-069 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-069 was issued on April 28, 1993 for <br />"Failure to maintain an approved sedimentation pond and approved <br />ditches." This NOV applied to the discharge pipe of Pond 3 and <br />five of the D-series ditches. <br />Mr. Dudash, representing the Division, explained that he observed <br />a small amount of water leaking from around the concrete liner of <br />the Pond 3 discharge outlet. There was less than 1/2 gpm. The <br />water travelled about 60' and then dried up. There was no <br />discharge into the river. Results of a water quality sample were <br />95 mg/L TSS. The daily maximum discharge allowed in the NPDES <br />permit is 70 mg/L. Regarding the ditches, they were partially <br />blocked and not functioning as designed. <br />Mr. Thompson, representing Basin Resources, did not contest the <br />fact of the violation. He did request a reduction in the <br />proposed civil penalty. <br />The proposed civil <br />'History: <br />Seriousness <br />Fault <br />Good Faith <br />Total <br />penalty was: <br />$50.00 <br />$1000.00 <br />$1000.00 <br />$O.OA <br />$2050.00 <br />History <br />This component was not in dispute. <br />Seriousness <br />The proposed penalty was assessed at significant, because water <br />was discharged off-site while not in compliance with NPDES <br />effluent limits. No visible off-site damage was documented <br />however, the ponds integrity was questioned because of the seep. <br />The operator requested a reduction because the discharge was <br />limited to a small area, there was no visible evidence of damage <br />and it was of short duration. The discharge pipe had a hole in <br />the bottom, and the water was leaking from around the concrete <br />liner. There was no damage resulting from the lack of <br />maintenance to the culverts. <br />Initailly, I felt a reduction in seriousness <br />appropriate. However, this is the same pond <br />repaired a month earlier. This time the disc <br />compliance. Although I agree the damage was <br />instance, there is the potential for greater <br />proposing to reduce this component. <br />would be <br />the operator had <br />charge was not in <br />small in this <br />damage. I am not <br />