ENFORCE28765 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR Notice of Violation C-92-001 (Page 1 of 3) Conference Summar NOV C-92-001 was issued on January 9, 1992 by Cathy Begej of the Division, based on an inspection she conducted December 17-19, 1991 at the Southfield Mine. The NOV was issued for "failure to follow plan for construction and maintenance of refuse pile; specifically, utilization of a refuse product which differs from that projected by the plan upon which stability analyses were run, and failure to maintain drainage off the crest of the fill." Ms. Begej, representing the Division, reviewed some of the history leading up to issuance of the NOV, as well as the observations she made on site during the inspection. The Division had requested Energy Fuels Coal, Inc. (EFCI> to revise the refuse pile stability analysis on September 30, 1991, based on recommendations contained in the operator's quarterly engineering certifications for the pile. The certification indicated differences between plan and practice with respect to coarse/fine material mixing and ratios. A preliminary evaluation was submitted by the operator in October, with a commitment to submit a more detailed stability evaluation by January 15, 1992. Ms. Begej described the upper terrace of the refuse pile during the December inspection as containing numerous small depressions and puddles amongst truck dumped piles of pond cleaning material. The presence of the pond cleanings had prevented timely grading of the terrace to allow for proper drainage as specified by the approved design. Ms. Begej indicated that the storage of pond cleanings as observed in December had been standard practice at the site for some time, but had not been previously identified as a problem by the Division. Mr. Weaver pointed out, and Ms. Begej concurred, that the detailed stability analysis addressing certain of the questions raised by the NOV was submitted to the Division on'January 15, 1992. Ms. Begej indicated that the analysis as submitted was very complete and thorough, and was sufficient to abate NOV abatement item number 3, which had an abatement deadline of April 9, 1992. Fact of Violation The operator did not dispute the fact of either component of the violation (coarse/fine materials mixing, ratios, and placement; and improper surface drainage). I find that a violation did occur.