Laserfiche WebLink
seriousness <br />Based on the evidence presented, it appears likely that the <br />discharge exceeded NPDES limits for suspended solids, and that <br />additional suspended solids (coal fines) were added to the flow of <br />Scullion Gulch. There appears to have been a potential for off <br />permit impacts to the hydrologic balance, but actual impacts were <br />apparently prevented as a result of containment by the dike/lagoon <br />at the mouth of Scullion Gulch. Coal fines apparently did not <br />enter the White River. Impacts to vegetation along Scullion Gulch <br />and adjacent to the lagoon at the mouth of the gulch were <br />apparently minor, due to the shallow accumulation of coal fines, <br />and apparent coverage and dilution by other sediments, based on <br />photos provided by the Operator. Based on the potential for <br />environmental damage indicated by the deposition of coal fines <br />observed by Ms. Binns along a 1 1/2 mile segment of Scullion Gulch, <br />I believe the seriousness of the violation is significant. Because <br />actual damage to the hydrologic balance appears to be minor, and <br />limited to the permit area, I do not believe "severe" seriousness <br />is warranted. I propose an assessment of $1000.00 for Seriousness. <br />Fault <br />I believe the circumstances surrounding the discharge of PP2 which <br />resulted in the violation point to a high degree of negligence. <br />The employees were apparently aware of the requirements concerning <br />pond discharge sampling and effluent limits, but in their haste to <br />complete their task, they neglected to follow established <br />procedure. The decision to discharge the pond was made due to a <br />concern over the possibility that their project would accidentally <br />cut a water line which would have caused a major spill if the pond <br />had not been dewatered. <br />Although the discharge was certainly intentional, it is not <br />apparent that the employees intended to discharge coal fines into <br />Scullion Gulch. Had they been aware that the discharge would <br />likely result in a non-compliance discharge, but discharged the <br />pond anyway, a degree of fault higher than negligence would be <br />warranted, based on wilful, intentional conduct. The evidence does <br />not demonstrate this to be the case. Previous PP2 discharges had <br />apparently been made without problems, and the discharge pipe <br />outlet was not visible from the work crew's location. Mr. Chervick <br />indicated that prior to the discharge, the water in PP2 was <br />relatively clear, and he speculated that the excessive sediments <br />may not have been discharged until near the end of the discharge <br />event, Given the above considerations, I believe the assessment <br />for fault should reflect the highest degree of negligence, but not <br />"reckless, knowing, or intentional conduct" and I therefore propose <br />an assessment of $750.00 for Fault. <br />Good Faith <br />The NOV was fully abated within the established time frames. Step <br />1 of the abatement was initiated by the Operator on the day the NOV <br />