Laserfiche WebLink
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-94-016 <br />Notice of Violation C-94-016 was issued for "Failure to conduct <br />surface water monitoring in accordance with the monitoring <br />program submitted under 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv) and approved by the <br />Division. Failure to collect flow data on Trout Creek at site <br />TR-b for the month of June, 1994." Susan Bergmaier issued the <br />NOV to The Pittsburgh and Midway Mining Company on July 29, 1994 <br />at the Edna Mine. During her July inspection she found that P&M <br />had not collected a flow measurement from site TR-b, although <br />water quality data had been collected. However, the quality <br />data, conductivity and total dissolved solids, is of no value <br />without the flow data. This is the downstream monitoring site on <br />Trout Creek. P&M had not notified the Division of the lack of <br />data or of any difficulties in obtaining it. <br />Ms. Bergmaier stated that there has been a concern regarding the <br />lack of and accuracy of monitoring at this site for several years <br />due to beaver dam activity, equipment failures and flooding. The <br />concern was addressed during the permit renewal process. A <br />stipulation was attached to the permit renewal requiring P&M, <br />among other items, to establish a permanent, accurate downstream <br />monitoring site on Trout Creek. A revision was submitted in <br />December, 1992 and approved in May, 1994. It became effective in <br />August, 1994. A new site was approved further downstream on <br />Trout Creek using a continuous recorder. Monitoring was to <br />continue et the old site until the new site was installed. <br />Representatives of PAM did not contest the fact of the violation. <br />They stated the flow was merely a trickle and could not be <br />recorded using the staff gauge. Therefore, they could not obtain <br />the data. Mr. Brian gontarik said that, if need be, flow data <br />could be calculated using a relational equation with the data <br />from TR-a. Furthermore, they felt they were blind sided by the <br />issuance of this NOV, after the revision had been approved. They <br />had all the necessary approvals and were in the process of <br />installing the new site. <br />In response, Ms. Bergmaier agreed that the data probably could <br />not have been collected with the staff gauge. However, the flow <br />could have been measured using techniques other than the staff <br />gauge. It was P&M's responsibility to notify the Division of <br />their lack of data. <br />Although P&M agreed that a violation had occurred they disagreed <br />with the proposed penalty. The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $750.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1500.00 <br />