Laserfiche WebLink
~• - <br />Mike Long <br />Page 2 <br />5. NOV C-92-027 (July 28, 1992 inspection) issued on August 28, 1992 for failure to maintain the <br />road to the east side of the mine site. The rules cited were 4.03.11611a1 and Ibl and 4.03.2(611a1 <br />and (b). Abatement work was to repair the road. There was one extension of the abatement <br />deadline. Abatement work was performed and the NOV was terminated. <br />6. NOV C-92-028 (July 28, 1992 inspection) issued on October 7, 1992 for failure to maintain <br />permanent impoundment 15-P2, as its discharge was out of compliance with NPDES standards. <br />The rules cited were 4.05.91111a1, 4.05.217) and 4.05.2181. The abatement work was to excavate <br />sediment from the impoundments and then recertify the impoundment. Abatement deadline dates <br />were extended several times due to bad weather. The abatement work has yet to be started. <br />NOV C-92-029 (July 28, 1992 inspection) issued on October 7, 1992 for failure to maintain <br />sediment pond 15-P11, as its discharge was out of compliance with NPDES standards. Rules cited <br />were 4.05.2171, 4.05.218) and 4.05.61311a1, (bl and (cl. The abatement work consisted of <br />sediment removal and recertification. The abatement deadlines were extended several times due to <br />bad weather. The abatement work has yet to be started. <br />The Division believes that these violations do not represent isolated departures from lawful conduct, but <br />indicate a broad, overall lack of concern with regulatory compliance by the operator. Mine site personnel <br />inspect this site on an occasional basis only. When it became apparent last Summer that 1992 was <br />becoming a year of abnormally high precipitation, Trinidad Basin Mining Company should have increased its <br />frequency of site inspections, in the anticipation of erosion and sedimentation problems occurring at the <br />site. This was not done. <br />Only after Notices of Violations were issued were some of the environmental concerns addressed. <br />Although some action was taken on the part of the operator prior to Division enforcement action, the <br />majority of corrective action required by the operator to abate the Violatiens has yet to be completed. <br />The Division has further determined that a Show Cause Order for Permit Revocation, as defined in Rule <br />5.03.3, should be issued to Trinidad Basin Mining Company. The Division believes this necessary in that <br />existence of the Pattern of Violations discussed herein represents an unwarranted failure of the Permittee <br />to comply with the Regulations. The Division believes that had the Permittee allocated resources to the <br />increased site maintenance, enforcement action could have been avoided. In addition, the Permittee has <br />refused to complete the majority of the corrective action necessary to abate these violations. <br />The Division also believes that the Board, per Rule 3.04.111), should declare all of the performance bonds <br />posted for the Trinidad Basin Mine by the Permittee forfeit. The Division believes that the Permittee has <br />failed to conduct the surface mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and <br />the permit within the time required, and that it is necessary, in order to fulfill the requirements of the <br />permit and the reclamation plan, to have someone other than the Permittee complete reclamation. <br />The Division further believes that pursuant to Rule 3.04.11211c1, the Board should not develop a compliance <br />schedule for the Permittee to correct the violations, as the permittee has heretofore demonstrated an <br />inability and unwillingness to comply with Division-required corrective actions. <br />SGR/JD/ern/scg <br />cc: Jae Dudash <br />Dan Hernandez <br />m:1os s\arn1c81048. wp <br />