My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE23774
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE23774
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:53 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:31:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/8/1995
Doc Name
Letter and Settlement Agreement
From
DMG
To
PITTSBURG & MIDWAY COAL MINING CO
Violation No.
CV1995009
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Y <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-95-009 <br />Notice of Violation C-95-009 was issued for "Failure to conduct spoil spring monitoring as per <br />the approved plan. Failure to provide a full suite water quality sample for spring #1 ". Kent <br />Gorham issued the NOV from the office on April 17, 1995 to Pittsburgh and Midway Mining <br />Company (P&M). The NOV was issued as a result of Mr. Gorham's review of the 1994 annual <br />hydrologic report. <br />Mr. Gorham explained that the P&M permit requires the company to sample springs and seeps <br />with flows greater than 20 gpm during the annual spring and seep survey conducted in May of <br />each year. A water quality sample is taken at this time for the parameters listed in Table 4,6-54 <br />of the permit. In 1994 there was only one spring flowing greater than 20 gpm. It was Spring <br />#I. P&M did not conduct the full suite water quality analysis as required by the permit. Mr. <br />Gorham said spring #1 is a critical node for the Yampa River cumulative hydrologic impact <br />assessment. It is the largest spoil spring in Twentymile Park and it provides the upper most node <br />in the Trout Creek drainage. Lack of data from this spring diminishes the integrity of the model. <br />Mr. Brian Gontarek, representing P&M, did not contest the fact of the violation. He said, <br />however the spring is also monitored as an NPDES point so monitoring data is available. There <br />was internal miscommunication regarding the required spring sampling for the full suite analysis <br />required in Table 4.6-54 in addition to the NPDES requirements. He stated the integrity of the <br />Yampa River CHIA was not diminished as result of the lack of full suite analysis. TDS is the <br />component put into the model and it is measured quarterly as required by the NPDES permit. <br />The other parameters, except aluminum, were analyzed in conjunction with a nearby ground <br />water well, WR-1. Although, the sample is a ground water sample and the spring is a surface <br />site, the results would be similar from both sites. The only chemical parameter not measured <br />at WR-1 was aluminum and there has never been any indication of problems with it. In <br />summary, although he does not contest the NOV, Mr. Gontarek felt the seriousness assessment <br />was too high. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $50.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $800.00 <br />Seriousness <br />As stated in the proposed assessment, knowledge of hydrologic impacts of mine related spoil <br />springs in the Twentymile Park area is important [o the mining industry, the Division and the <br />State of Colorado. In this case, Spring #1 was not sampled as required, however TDS data was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.