_INSPECTION - C1981018 (57) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 18,2011 C-1981-018/Deserado Mine JRS OTHER(cont.): We next went to the tank farm area in question,which is just east of the D-portals. There was, and still is,evidence of spillage. Since the concrete containment structure is in place,any water or spillage that enters the containment structure will remain there until manually removed. There was what appeared to be a high- water mark between 6 and 12 inches on the walls of the enclosure. While there was some spillage evident around the tank farm, it did not appear to be from one spill but,rather,the culmination of 20-30 years of little spills when filling gas cans or vehicles. This is the kind of spillage the Division bonds for as Petroleum Contaminated Soil removal at a mine site. The tank farm had tanks for diesel fuel, Lingo Sulfonate and shield oil. The shield oil is very dilute oil that is used on the longwall shields underground. BME stated that they use the Lingo Sulfonate for dust suppression on roads. I did an internet search for the Lingo Sulfonate and,while I did not see anything regarding dust suppression,it is used in concrete,as a pesticide dispersant and in fertilizers, so I am assuming that it is fairly benign. The size of the enclosure was approximately 15'x45' and approximately 4 feet tall. With the 6- 12 inch high water mark,there would be approximately 2,500 gallons in the enclosure(not including the volume taken by the tanks, so the actual volume would be less). There was no ethylene glycol(antifreeze)tank present at this tank farm or any of the other two at the site. (The other two tank farms, on the prep plant bench and near rock dust tank 3, did not show any evidence of major spillage and there were no ethylene glycol tanks at either farm). After we looked at the tank farm we went to refuse pile RP-5a, where BME stated they spread the remaining water, following the removal of the diesel fuel. Obviously,we did not see anything on the pile,except coal refuse. We then went down to pond RP-5a to see if there was any evidence of oil or oil sheen on the surface of the pond or any evidence of oil or diesel fuel entering the pond. Our investigation did not yield any evidence of oil or diesel fuel in or around the pond. The next area of interest was the loadout area,which was the area discussed in the complaint. We started at the slot storage area,which is south of the loadout. There was some work that had recently been completed at the entrance/sump to a culvert that flows under the slot storage access road and reports to pond SS-1 (which looks very much like a natural pond). While there was some"black"material present in the dug-out sump area, it appeared to be and smelled like coal material(from the wash down of the slot storage facility),with no signs of a diesel fuel smell. I then went to the outlet of the culvert and stuck my head in the culvert. Again,there was no smell of diesel fuel in the culvert. I walked into the pond,which had only spots of mud in the bottom. I took several handfuls of this black mud and smelled it. Again,it smelled like coal. As with the refuse pile area,we found no evidence of diesel fuel or oil in or around pond SS-1. We also looked at the undisturbed areas between the refuse piles and loadout from the high vantage point of the slot storage facility. We were looking for any evidence of a spill/dumping or evidence of someone driving in this area. There was no evidence of either activity. I thought that the two silos in question may have been the rock duct tanks but again,there was no evidence of anyone driving in this undisturbed area. Additionally,these tanks are separated by approximately one half mile, so the statement that the mixture was buried"on a hill...between two silos"would not make sense in this respect. Finally,we went to the base of the loadout area,just north of the slot storage facility. We inspected the ponds (RR-1 and RRS-1)and the drainages in this area and found no evidence of any water or dumping, and no evidence of oil or diesel fuel. There was no staining of the ground that would be indicative of the major diesel fuel dumping Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 1 Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1 Page 5 of 22