Hospital to contest river pollution fine

By RICHARD HANNERS

Whitefish Pilot

North Valley Hospital and Swank Enterprises, the contractor that built the new hospital facility in Whitefish, intend to contest a fine for allegedly polluting the Whitefish River.

Attorneys for both parties are scheduled to appear before the Montana Board of Review in Helena on July 27. They have until Aug. 29 to file a pre-hearing schedule or settlement documents.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality charged North Valley Hospital on May 7 with violating water quality standards and for not maintaining best-management practices and stormwater management controls, and it ordered the hospital to pay a $30,036 fine.

According to DEQ's notice of violation, the hospital was issued a general permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction on May 23, 2005. The hospital was required to "develop, implement and maintain all best-management practices (BMPs) and stormwater management controls to minimize potential pollutants in stormwater discharges."

On June 7, 2005, the White-fish police department received a call from Leonard Howke, who lives downhill from the hospital construction site.

Howke reported a six-inch pipe was discharging water from the construction area onto his property. He said the water was washing out his driveway, depositing silt on his property and putting sediment into the Whitefish River.

The Whitefish area had seen quite a bit of rain in the weeks prior to the reported incident, and Swank crews were using pumps at the time to keep water out of the construction site.

The DEQ's water protection bureau was notified about the complaint on June 9. Compliance officer Gail Faber spoke to a Swank representative and was told that "rainy weather had prevented installment of BMPs and completion of a retention pond."

"However," Faber reported, "he stated that the BMPs were 99 percent complete."

Faber inspected the site on June 10, 2005, and measured the turbidity in the stormwater flowing from the construction site and in the river. At the confluence of the drainage water and the river, she measured 800 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs). Just upstream from there, she measured 1.7 NTUs — a difference of 798.3 NTUs.

The Whitefish River is classified as a B-2 river and only a 10 NTU increase is allowed.

Faber also inspected the use of BMPs at the site and found them to be "inadequate and incomplete." Straw bales were not installed correctly, no BMPs were present at the construction site's access locations, and vehicles had tracked sediment onto River Lakes Parkway because no BMPs were in place to prevent or minimize tracking, she reported.

Faber sent North Valley Hospital a violation letter on Sept. 1, 2005, that described the site conditions and recommended the hospital return to compliance by improving and completing BMPs. Swank responded on Sept. 20 by asking for additional time.

"As of the date of this order (May 7, 2007), however, neither (Swank) nor NVH has responded with the description of completed corrective measures," DEQ states in their notice of violation.

Faber returned to the site for another permit compliance inspection on May 24, 2006. She measured NTUs of 3.3 and 5.67 in the river and 2,830, 326, 278 and 58.9 in the construction site's drainage ways.

No drainage water was entering the river at that time, but Faber obtained photographs from the Howkes on April 14, 2006, "showing discharge from the site creating an obvious turbid plume in the Whitefish River."

She also reported seeing inadequate and incomplete use of BMPs. Straw bales were either incorrectly installed or missing in places, and the silt fencing was "incomplete, missing, broken by soil movement or laying flat," she reported.

On July 31, 2006, Faber sent a violation letter to North Valley Hospital. Swank replied on Aug. 4, 2006, noting certain corrective actions that had been taken, including seeding open dirt areas, installing erosion mats, straw bales and a silt fence, and investigating how to remove off-site sediment.

DEQ used a worksheet to calculate a penalty for the hospital's water quality violations. The penalty was increased because the hospital "had or should have knowledge of the permit's requirements," and it was not reduced based on any good faith effort by the hospital.

"NVH took no actions that could be considered as good faith and cooperation and, therefore, the department made no adjustment for this penalty factor," DEQ said.