ENFORCE35574 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t RFCEI'~/FD AUG 3 p 1993 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION pivisicr~~•`.:rq;,~,,o.c,.~.;,ci,~~,~. NOV C-93-065 Notice of Violation C-93-065 was issued for "Failure to place and store non-coal wastes in a controlled manner in a designated portion of the permit area, failure to ensure that leachate and surface runoff do not degrade surface or groundwater, and failure to ensure that the area remains suitable for reclamation and revegetation compatible with natural surroundings." Tom Gillis, representing the Division, explained that he observed hydraulic fluid beneath one of the Liebherr 991 hydraulic shovel/excavators stored in the equipment storage yard during his inspection on April 14,1993. The NOV was issued the same day: The abatement deadline was two phased: 1) Submit a clean up plan by May 10 and 2) complete clean up and disposal by May 20, according to the plan. A contractor for the operator contacted Mr. Gillis several times regarding the abatement. Mr. Gillis concerns with the spill were: 1) that there was a small potential for the fluid to leave the mine site through the sediment pond, 2) the topsoil would be contaminated and prohibit vegetative growth, and 3) there was the potential for contamination to ground water. He did not know how long the fluid had been there, although the tractor has been in storage for at least several years. Oak Ridge Energy Inc., represented by Jim Hendricks and Darr} Ferguson, contested the violation for several reasons. First:, there was a procedural concern. There was no permit in effect. Permit C-82-054 had been revoked in 1991 with a stipulation requiring the operator to maintain the site. Second, the leeik occurred in an approved equipment storage area. It was not ei failure to store, the fluid had leaked from the equipment in a designated equipment area where some leakage is expected. Ttiey did not consider it a spill. Third, the area is within the sediment control area, although it is very unlikely the fluid would have reached the pond and even more unlikely that it would hnve discharged offsite. He disagreed with Mr. Gillis concerns regarding potential damage, because of what he regarded as tt~e small amount of fluid. The amount is .unclear, but estimates quoted in the conference ranged from 20 - 50 gallons. The abatement plan was developed in conjunction with the San Juan Basin Health Department after several agencies had been cont~icted to determine who had jurisdiction. The abatement plan was to spread the fluid on the roads for dust suppression. I believe a violation did occur. Although some leakage from equipment may be expected, 20-50 gallons is a large volume of hazardous fluid to be pooled on the ground surface. There are designated areas in the permit area to store hazardous materials. The fluids must be contained and the storage area must be surrounded by a berm. The fluid that was pooling as a result: of