ENFORCE28529

• Permit No: C1981038
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 8/31/1992
• Doc Name: ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE NOV C-92-007
• From: MLRD
• To: MIKE LONG
• Violation No.: CV1992007
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Justification of Vacation Recommendation
for NOV C-92-007
The assessment conference for NOV C-92-007 was held in our offices on
August 26, 1992. In attendance at the conference were Mr. Karl Koehler of
Cyprus Orchard Valley Coal Corporation (COVCC), and David Berry and
Steve Shuey of the Division Staff, in addition to me.
NO+/ C-92-007 was issued by David Berry, Senior Reclamation Specialist, on
May 26, 1992, based on an inspection conducted by Steve Shuey on
April 16, 1992, and a sediment pond discharge sample taken by the operator as
directed by Mr. Shuey on that date. The NOV was issued for "failure to
maintain a sediment pond outlet (West Mine Pond/NPDES Outfall 006) to ensure
compliance with applicable state and/or federal water quality standards and
the standards contained within NPDES Permit CO-0033685." The NOV indicated
that the pond outfall riser was leaking at the time of the inspection, and
cited non-compliance with Rules 4.05.6(3)(a), 4.05.6(9), 4.05.1(3>, 4.05.2(7),
4.05.5(1)(b>, and the NPDES Permit, based on sample analysis which indicated a
total suspended solids level of 90 mg/1, an apparent erceedance of the 70 mg/1
standard specified in the NPDES Permit.
The penalty assessment proposed by the Division Assessment Officer was:
History 550.00
Seriousness 5500.00
Fault 5500.00
Total Proposed
Penalty 31,050.00
At the conference, Mr. Koehler made the following comments and observations
- The leak occurred due to a faulty seam at the junction of the stand
pipe and the outlet culvert. The seam had not been known to leak
in the past and no leakage was in evidence when the pond had most
recently been inspected by the operator on March 31, 1992. The
Division has a copy of the certified inspection report on file.
- Mr. Koehler had observed from a distance a small pool of water
below the pond outfall several days prior to the inspection, but
assumed it had originated from acjacent upland areas, as conditions
at the site were wet due to earlier rainfall and snowmelt, and the
water level in the pond was below the dewatering level.
- The flow resulting from the leak was minimal (2 gpm or less) and
did not continue below the pool at the outlet.
- The sample taken on Aprit 16 was taken by Mr. Koehler inside the
standpipe, at the source of the leak. That sample point was
selected rather than the normal sample location below the discharge
pipe because the paucity of flow and stagnant water conditions at
that location would have made it difficult to obtain a sample.