Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michael B. Long -2- March 14, 1994 <br />in two places. Silt fences, with holes in the fabric, showed evidence of recently passing <br />untreated flows offsite (8-12-93 inspection). <br />In addition to these four violations, three other NOV's were issued for the permittee's failure to <br />comply with various non-related performance standards. These violations are: <br />1. NOV C-92-034 -Issued for improper placement and storage of non-coal waste. Mine trash <br />was stored in an area not designated for non-coal waste storage. This was a permit defect, <br />as the mine never permitted a designated non-coal waste storage area. Additionally, a <br />portable shed on skids, housing 17 drums of various fluids, one of which contained cleaning <br />solvent which is considered hazardous material by the Colorado Department of Health, was <br />discovered in an area designated as a small area exemption. The Division maintained that <br />even if the shed is considered proper storage of hazardous materials, the Division would <br />never approve of its placement in a small area exemption. Potential for surface and ground- <br />water contamination was the main Division concern (10-20-92 inspectionl. <br />2. NOV C-93-007 -Issued for failure to protect topsoil when the operator allowed the coal <br />stockpile to encroach upon one of the topsoil stockpiles (2-23-93 inspection). <br />3. NOV C-93-1 18 -Issued for surface blasting activities conducted in a manner that was not in <br />compliance with State and Federal laws and the requirements of Rule 4.08. Required <br />signing and public notification of blasting did not occur. The blast site was within 400 feet <br />of State Highway 133 18-12-93 inspectionl. <br />The Division believes that these seven violations do not represent isolated departures from <br />lawful conduct, but rather a broad, overall lack of concern with regulatory compliance by the <br />permittee. <br />The Division further believes these violations were caused by the unwarranted failure of the <br />permittee to comply with the requirements of the Act, Rules and permit conditions. Therefore, I <br />recommend that you concur that a Pattern of Violations exists at this site. <br />Should you concur, the Division will issue to Somerset Mining Company an Order to Show <br />Cause why the permit for the SomersetlSanborn Creek Mine should not be suspended or <br />revoked. The Division does not believe that any exceptional circumstances exist that would <br />provide a basis for deeming the issuance of such an order as demonstrably unjust. <br />Enclosed is a letter from J.E. Stover and Associates, consultant to Somerset Mining Company, <br />explaining Somerset Mining Company's position on each violation. Their statement that "the <br />Division vacated all of the violations" is false. It was probably their intent to say all violations <br />were "abated." <br />SGR/bjw <br />m:\ossl6jw\sgr <br />