ENFORCE21237 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • 1 JUSTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOV C-92-034 Conference Summary NOV C-92-034 was issued by Steve Shuey of the Division to Somerset Mining Company for "[f]ailure to place and store non-coal waste in a controlled manner in a designated portion of the permit area". Rule 4.11.4(1), cited in the NOV, states: "Noncoal wastes ...shall be placed and stored in a controlled manner in a designated portion of the permit area. Placement and storage shall ensure that leachate and surface runoff do not degrade surface or ground water...". The NOV was issued October 30, 1992, based on an October 20-23, 1992 inspection of the Somerset Mine conducted by Mr. Shuey. Mr. Shuey opened discussion of the NOV by describing the observations he made during his inspection. Twenty-one, 55 gallon drums were observed stored in a metal shed north of the explosives bunker in Elk Creek Canyon. Seventeen of the drums contained varying quantities of fluids, which was assumed to possibly include waste lubricants and/or solvents. Mr. Shuey further noted that the shed had several PCB warning stickers, was located within a small area exemption site and thus did not drain through a sediment pond, and finally, that the site was not approved for noncoal waste storage and the storage shed was not designated in the permit nor depicted on approved facilities area maps. Mr. Shuey also noted that several small piles of timbers, pallets, rock dust bags, buckets of grout and other inert materials were present on the mine site and appeared to be noncoal waste, but the permit did not include any designated noncoal waste storage area. Jim Stover, representing the operator, indicated that he did not contest the fact that a violation occurred; he acknowledged that noncoal wastes were stored on site but that no designated storage site had been addressed in the permit. Mr. Stover did question the amount of the civil penalty. He felt that the metal storage shed was an appropriate storage facility for waste fluids and contained sufficient secondary storage capacity to prevent contamination resulting from spillage (a faxed memo dated 1/13/93 contained calculations indicating that the facility would contain spillage from the largest drum stored). The Division's response was that the calculations were possibly suspect because the floor of the shed did not appear to be level, and the Division was also concerned with the possibility of surface water contamination from spillage due to mishaps during transport and handling, since the facility was outside of the sediment pond containment area. Fact of Violation I find that a violation did occur. The operator acknowledges that noncoal wastes were stored on site, but that no designated portions