ENFORCE33505

• Permit No: C1981053
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 8/27/1990
• From: HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON
• To: MLRD
• Violation No.: CV0000000
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Fred R. Banta
August 23, 1990
Page 2
Blue Flame Coal requests that this Agency take notice of
exceptional circumstances in the present case. Many of the
violations noted in your July 30, 1990 letter were a direct result
of Blue Flame's attempts to comply with previously stated
requirements. For example, NOV-C-89-009 required Blue Flame Coal
to remove certain coal waste from the ground surface. Because the
coal waste was not completely removed by the deadline set in
NOV-C-89-009, Cessation Order No. 89-011 was written for failure to
abate NOV-C-89-009. In addition, because the coal waste, which was
required by this Agency to be removed, was not removed to a
permitted area, NOV-C-89-012 was written for ^failure to dispose of
underground develop::en*, waste within a permitted area." It appears
to be manifestly unfair to require a permittee to remove coal
waste, and then cite the permittee for a violation because not all
of the coal waste has been removed by a certain deadline, while
simultaneously citing the permittee for removing the coal waste.
Blue Flame did not willfully cause any of these violations, and
instead the violations were incurred because of Blue Flame's good
faith attempts to comply with regulations.
Additionally, NOV-C-89-033 was issued in December for failure
to implement an approved surface drainage control plan. At that
time, there were over fourteen inches of snow on the site, making
construction of the necessary structures impossible. As stated
above, the situation regarding the sediment pond has now been
completely corrected and complies with all regulations.
Another
account by th
for some time
mine for full
not having soi
future, as th
These f
by the unwa
regulations.
from lawful
this partici
July 30, 1990
Administrator
5.03.3(2)(c).
Blue Flame Cc
Board, pursua~
that this hea.
Blue Fla
from differer
some of which
ceptional circumstance which should be taken into
Agency is that, while the mine has been inactive
Blue Flame Coal is in the process of prepazing the
aeration. Thus, some of the past problems caused by
one on the site at all times will be remedied in the
mine becomes active.
s show that there is no pattern of violations caused
rated failure of Blue Flame Coal to comply with
ather, the violations cited aze isolated departures
iduct. Because of the exceptional circumstances of
r case, Blue Flame Coal asserts that it would be
ijust to fail to vacate the show cause order issued
Blue Flame Coal respectfully requests that the
vacate the show cause order pursuant to Rule
Should this Agency not vacate the show cause order,
1 requests review of the show cause order by the
. to Rule 5.03.3(3)(a). Blue Flame Coal understands
.ng has been set for October 17 and 18, 1990.
Coal has recently received considerable attention
divisions of the Department of Natural Resources,
is contained conflicting instructions regarding the