Laserfiche WebLink
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-029 <br />Assessment Conference Summary <br />NOV C-93-029 was issued by Randy Price of the Division on April 7, <br />1993, based on observations made by he and David Berry on a March <br />31-April 1, 1993 inspection of the Marr Strip. The NOV was issued <br />for "[f]ailure to have a non-clogging dewatering device on a <br />sediment pond", and applied to Sediment Pond E at the Marr Strip <br />Mine. The NOV cited Rule 4.05.6(3)(c), which requires that <br />sediment ponds be "designed, constructed, and maintained to provide <br />a nonclogging dewatering device or conduit spillway to remove water <br />storage resulting from inflow...". <br />Mr. Price explained that at the time of the inspection, the <br />sediment pond was still partially frozen over, but recent heavy, <br />wet snows had begun to melt and sediment laden melt water was <br />entering the pond. It was noted that the water level in the pond <br />w=s significantly above the level of the dewatering holes in the <br />p=_mary spillway riser, but the pond was not discharging. <br />Investigation revealed that the primary spillway dewatering pipe <br />was completely blocked by ice near the outlet end, and Mr. Price <br />and Mr. Berry were concerned that, with continued snowmelt, the <br />water level in the pond might rise to the level of the emergency <br />spillway, resulting in improper discharge which might exceed <br />sus_aended solids effluent limitations. Mr. Patterson stated that <br />the situation had occurred in the past at the site, at this same <br />time of year, but that the spillway ice had always melted well <br />before the water level approached the emergency spillway elevation. <br />He indicated that company personnel had been monitoring the <br />situation, and that melt was only occurring for a relatively short <br />time during the middle of the day. He indicated that the company <br />was prepared to take action if necessary, but he felt that the <br />spillway ice would melt as it had in the past, before there was any <br />danger of discharge through the emergency spillway. <br />Fact of violation <br />I find that a violation did occur. The Operator does not dispute <br />the fact that the primary spillway was blocked. Thus, the pond was <br />not " ..maintained to provide a nonclogging dewatering device or <br />conduit spillway to remove water storage resulting from inflow". <br />Civil Penalty Assessment <br />Proposed Penalty Assessment <br />History $ 50.00 <br />Seriousness 750.00 <br />Fault 250.00 <br />Good Faith -250.00 <br />Total $800.00 <br />