Laserfiche WebLink
Parameter Field <br />Measurement Permit Limit <br />30-day average daily maximum <br />Iron 290 mg/1 3.5 mg/I 7.0 mg/l <br />TSS 25,000 mg/1 35 mg/1 70 mg/1 <br />TDS 1600 mg/1 NJA Report <br />Ms. Crosby issued NOV C-96-011 on May 7, 1496 for "Failure to minimize disturbance to the <br />hydrologic balance. Failure to opcrate and maintain facilitics to treat water discharged from the <br />disturbed area to meet effluent limits in the mines CDPS permit". <br />Rather than considering NOV C-96-006 and C-96-0t i as separate violations, I am <br />recommending that NOV C-96-011 be vacated and the citation combined with NOV C-96-006. <br />The amended citation will be "Failure to design, construct and maintain the East Taylor Creek <br />Pond to provide adequate capacity to contain or treat the runoff or inflow entering the pond as <br />a result of a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event and thc inflow from the water pumped from <br />the West Pit into the East Taylor Creek Pond. Failure to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic <br />balance. Failure to operate and maintain facilities to treat water discharged from the disturbed <br />area to meet effluent limits in the mines CDPS permit". I did not include the second part of <br />NOV C-96-006, because Colowyo had addressed pit pumping in the permit as seen on page 4.05- <br />6. <br />In the assessment conference there was a lengthy discussion as to whether the alternate storm <br />limits could apply since the operator was pumping pit water into the pond. As discussed above, <br />the pit water was being pumped into the pond at a time when the runoff from snow melt was <br />high and there was a large rainfall. The operator chose to add more water to the treatment <br />system through the pumping. Correspondence between the DMG and the WQCD indicates that <br />WQCD did not exempt the water quality standards because pit water was being pumped. I agree <br />with the decision. <br />Colowyo also questioned if the water the DMG sampled was in fact a discharge. The water was <br />leaking at a rate of approximately 1 gpm from a newly constructed outlet. They argued that this <br />.should be considered a permit upset rather than a discharge. Ms. Crosby had discussed this issue <br />with WQCD, and they considered it a discharge. I will accept this decision. <br />Colowyo also argued that the DMG did not issue the NOV as required by the DMG/WQCD <br />MOU. The MOU requires NOV's to be issued within three days after the sample results are <br />obtained. The results were received by the DMG on April 25, 1996. The NOV was not issued <br />until May 7, twelve days after DMG received the results. Because of this, they requested the <br />NOV be vacated. Clearly, the DMG did not issue the NOV within the required timeframe and <br />this should be looked into. However, since the NOV addresses more than the water quality <br />issue, I am not recommending that it be vacated. <br />z <br />