Laserfiche WebLink
-6- <br />Mr, Swimmer's claim, in paragraph 2, of Blue Flame taking every possible <br />step etc. is not supported by the record. Blue Flame has received two <br />FTA COs and only one reduction of proposed penalty for good faith. <br />In paragraph 2, Mr. Swimmer has apparently been provided with bad <br />information. The sediment pond has not yet been properly reconstructed <br />or certified. <br />In paragraph 3, Mr. Swimmer apparently refers to NOVs C-89-009 and <br />C-89-012, and CO 84-011. Removal of coal was required by NOV C-89-009. <br />When it was not, FTA CO-89-O11 was issued as required by the <br />Regulations. Disposal of the coal, however, was made in a landfill, not <br />a permitted area as required by the Regulations, and NOV C-89-012 was <br />issued. If the Regulations under which the mine must operate are <br />"manifestly unfair" to Blue Flame Coal Co., possibly they would be better <br />off out of the business. Most of Blue Flame's problem was a result of <br />their bad management and/or ignorance of the Regulations. The disposal <br />of the coal in the landfill, however, might have been a wilful and <br />knowing violation, i.e. an attempt to save money and time in the disposal. <br />Contrary to being an exceptional case as claimed by Mr. Swimmer in <br />paragraph 5, Blue Flame's inactive status is shared by many other mines <br />in Colorado. Very few, however, have the compliance problems of this <br />mine. <br />In paragraph 4, Mr. Swimmer bases his argument on the snow cover in <br />December at the mine. The plan to be implemented, however, was approved <br />as TR #3 September 27, 1989 for installation by October 31, 1989. <br />October conditions, even November's, might be more relevant. The NOY was <br />not issued until Dec 21, 1990. <br />My overall impression of Mr. Swimmer's response is that he lacks <br />familiarity with Colorado regulations, i,e. what is required by them for <br />a mining operation and how they are enforced. Unfortunately, the same <br />could also be said of the people in charge of the mine, at least the <br />people with whom the Division has been dealing. No doubt, that is one of <br />the main reasons the mine and the operator are now in difficulty. <br />9931E/scg <br />