Laserfiche WebLink
contain or treat the runoff or inflow entering the pond as a result of a 10- <br />year, 24-hour precipitation event, pursuant to Rule 4.05.6(3)(a). NOV C- <br />92-021 was issued to the permittee for its failure to maintain the principal <br />spillways of permanent impoundments 15-P1, 15-132, 15-1320 and 22-P17, <br />pursuant to Rule 4.05.9(1)(e). <br />4. Following the July 28, 1992 inspection, the Division pursuant to Rule <br />5.03.2(2)(a), issued on August 28, 1992 Notice of Violation No. C-92-027 <br />to the permittee for its failure to maintain the road leading to the east half <br />of the mine site, pursuant to Rules 4.03.1(6)(a), 4.03.1(6)(b), 4.03.2(6)(a) <br />and 4.03.2(6)(b). <br />5. Following the July 28, 1992 inspection, the Division pursuant to Rule <br />5.03.2(2)(a), issued on October 16, 1992 Notices of Violation Nos. C-92- <br />028 and C-92-029. NOV C-92-028 was issued to the permittee for its <br />failure to maintain permanent impoundment 15-P2 so that discharge of <br />water from the impoundment met applicable State and Federal water <br />quality standards, pursuant to Rules 4.05.2(7), 4.05.2(8) and 4.05.9(1)(a). <br />NOV C-92-024 was issued to the permittee for its failure to maintain <br />sediment pond 15-P11 so that the pond discharge met applicable State <br />and Federal water quality standards pursuant to Rules 4.05.2(7), 4.05.2(8) <br />and 4.05.6(3)(a), (b), and (c). <br />6. The Division, pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(2)(a)(i) and (iv), determined on <br />February 18, 1993 that Notices of Violations C-92-013, C-92-014, C-92- <br />020, C-92-021, C-92-028 and C-92-029 were examples of noncompliance <br />by the permittee of the Regulations pertaining to protection of water <br />quality and maintenance of hydrologic structures. The Division <br />Administrator on February 22, 1993 pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(2), <br />subsequently determined that a pattern of violations existed at the <br />Trinidad Basin Mine. <br />7. The Division pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(1)(a), determined that in addition to <br />the existence of a pattern of violations, the violations were caused by the <br />unwarranted failure of the permittee to comply with the requirements of <br />the Act and Regulations. The Division subsequently issued on February <br />22, 1993 an order to the permittee to show cause why the permit should <br />not be suspended or revoked. <br />8. At the time of the hearing all of the Notices of Violation had either been <br />upheld in Assessment Conferences or were not contested by the <br />operator, were not the subject of requests by the permittee for Board <br />review, and had passed their time frames for the permittee to request <br />such review pursuant to Rules 5.03.5, 5.04.3, and 5.04.4. <br />6