ENFORCE32011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Justification of Settlement Agreement for Notice of Violation C-85-081 Peabody Coal Company (PCC) contested the fact and the proposed civil penalty for NOV C-85-081. First, PCC contended that a violation had not occurred because there was not a violation of the performance standards. The sediment pond surveys PCC conducted as part of the abatement indicated there was sufficient storage capacity in the sediment ponds to allow passage of the runoff resulting from a 10 year 24-hour storm event. In their permit, PCC committed to maintain ponds. However, PCC had not implemented a specific monitoring plan to check sediment levels. They relied on visual observations and the quality of the discharged water. Additionally they explained that the ponds were designed using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (LISLE). PCC contended that this method results in a larger storage capacity than is actually required and therefore, the ponds were larger than they needed to be. PCC demonstrated that the pond 004 dewatering device is not necessary to dewater the pond. The Division stated that there was no evidence at the time of the inspection to ensure these ponds had the minimum storage capacity. Anne explained that pond 003 was designed for three years of storage and pond 004 was designed for one year of storage. Theoretically, using the design information in the permit application both ponds should have been cleaned during the summer of 1984. I feel the violation should be upheld as an administrative violation. PCC did not have a specific monitoring plan to ensure there was sufficient capacity in the ponds to provide storage for the runoff or inflow entering the pond as a result of a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. One of the main reasons to monitor the storage capacity is to prevent an illegal water quality discharge. Specific monitoring methods are necessary to ensure proper pond maintenance. Additionally, the designs in the permit application indicated the ponds should have been cleaned last year. The Division can not accept the fact that the LISLE method for pond design results in oversized ponds. This is not true in every case and depends on many factors. The proposed civil penalty was: History $ 0.00 Seriousness b250.00 Fault b250.00 Good Faith $ 0.00 Seriousness The proposed civil penalty was assessed as a violation of performance standards. I feel it is now appropriate to consider this an administrative violation. PCC did not have a specific maintenance plan to ensure the sediment ponds would have sufficient storage capacity to handle the sediment