Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-96-002 <br />Notice of Violation C-96-002 was issued for "Failure to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic <br />balance. Failure to construct, operate and maintain Pond E to treat runoff so it complies with <br />all Federal and State laws and limitations of 4.05.2. Failure to construct and maintain Pond E <br />to prevent short-circuiting. Failure to certify immediately following construction (Pond E <br />relocation). Kent Gorham issued the NOV to Twentymile Coal Company (TCC) on March 1, <br />1996. The NOV was based on his February 21, 1996 inspection. During the inspection, Mr. <br />Gorham observed a large volume of dark water discharging from Pond E. He took a sample and <br />had it analyzed for settleable solids (SS). A split was given to the operator. Results from the <br />DMG sample were 7 ml/1/hr and from the TCC sample, results were 8/ml/1/hr. Mr. Gorham <br />went on to explain that during this inspection, he and Jce Walker from TCC, carefully examined <br />Pond E to determine the cause of the dark discharge. A culvert was emptying into the pond near <br />the outfall resulting in short circuiting. <br />Additionally, Mr. Gorham cited the lack of an as-built certification. Pond E was relocated and <br />reconstructed last fall. As of the February inspection, an as-built certification had not been <br />submitted. Rule 4.05.6(10) requires the certification to be submitted immediately following <br />construction. <br />Rick Mills representing TCC did not contest the fact of the violation. He did want to address <br />the proposed civil penalty which was assessed as indicated below. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $100.00 <br />Seriousness $1250.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $2100.00 <br />Hrstnrv <br />TCC has received two NOV's during the past twelve months. <br />Seriousness <br />The proposed penalty states that an actual effluent limitation violation did occur. Mr. Mills said <br />this statement was in error. Technically, TCC did not violate their effluent standards. The <br />Settleable Solids (SS) limitations are in effect only when the operator has claimed alternative <br />limitations, such as a storm exemption. TCC did not claim the alternative limitations, therefore <br />the total suspended solids (TSS) limitation was the applicable standard, not SS. Furthermore, <br />when TCC took their February compliance sample the first week of the month, the water was <br />clear and in compliance. Mr. Mills thought the poor quality discharge probably started when <br />