My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE30912
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE30912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:42:49 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:48:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981018
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
Settlement Agreement NOV C-96-019
Violation No.
CV1996019
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.
/
6
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
_: <br />strap had rusted through, causing the CMP to fail, thus leading to <br />the unpermitted discharge. The structure was repaired and buried <br />shortly after the event occurred. <br />Blue Mountain/Western Fuels contested both the violation and the <br />amount of proposed civil penalty. <br />The Company asserted that they initially transferred water to the <br />empty RP-1 pond in an effort to avoid a greater environmental <br />problem due to the potential for a non-compliant discharge from the <br />other ponds. They indicated that their actions to contain the non- <br />compliant discharge problem by transferring water out of pond RP-1 <br />with the pump mitigated potential violations. They also pointed <br />out that the cause of the CMP failure was buried within the pond <br />embankment, making it virtually impossible to detect the problem <br />until it occurred. Finally, they pointed out that their sample <br />reflected a discharge within the established limitations. <br />I have upheld the violation for the following reasons. Regardless <br />of the cause, a non-compliant discharge from pond RP-1 did occur, <br />as evidenced by Dan Mathews' sample. The discharge occurred as a <br />result of other sediment ponds on the site not being able to <br />adequately treat the runoff from their contributing areas prior to <br />discharge. Further, the non-compliant discharge is directly <br />attributable to a mechanical failure within the dewatering device. <br />It is the responsibility of the operator to maintain the integrity <br />of these structures to ensure that they function as designed at all <br />times. <br />The company contended that the amount of civil penalty was <br />disproportionate to the severity of the violation. I tend to <br />concur, and am recommending that the civil penalty be reduced as <br />indicated. <br />History $0.00 <br />No violations within the past twelve months. No change. <br />Seriousness $500 <br />The original Seriousness component was a Low degree of Significance <br />($1,000). I find that a Moderate degree of Seriousness is <br />warranted. As the volume of discharge was limited at 6 to 8 <br />gallons per minute, and the duration was less than 24 hours, and <br />because the drainage did not enter Red Wash, the elevated total <br />suspended solids discharge to an otherwise dry channel would have <br />had a virtually unmeasurable impact to the hydrologic balance of <br />the area. However, any non-compliant discharge is an issue to be <br />taken seriously, and should be cause for concern by the permittee <br />and the regulatory authority. <br />Fault $250 <br />The original Fault component was an Intermediate degree of <br />Negligence ($500). I find that a Low degree of negligence is the <br />appropriate level of Fault. It is difficult at best to determine <br />underground system failures, however, the permittee is required to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.