1990-08-13_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

Fred R. Banta, Director August 10, 1990 MLRD, Denver, CO 80203 Page 2 This response is in three parts. The first part is a summary of the factual issues. The second part is a detailed discussion of NoVs and COs enumerated in your letter. The third part is a summary of Mid-Continent's legal objections. Part 1 Summary of Factual Issues It is Mid-Continent's position that these violations do not properly constitute a pattern of violations. None reflect an indifference or inattention to the law on the part of Mid- Continent. Nor do the circumstances suggest or establish either a willful or an unwarranted failure to comply. All were abated in timely fashion, some with extraordinary effort by Mid-Continent. NoV C-89-003 (22-Feb-89) NoV C-89-003 arose due to the harsh and unusual conditions in Coal Basin during the winter months of 1988-1989. The sediment control system for mine drainage, Outfall No. 016, was properly designed and was maintained according to the approved plan. However, prolonged, severe freezing caused the ponds to malfunction — they simply froze up. Mid-Continent has taken a number of steps to prevent a recurrence of the problems which arose, including improvements to the pond system itself. Mid-Continent has committed to installation of an alternative water treatment system and has made substantial expenditures and efforts to bring such a system on- line. NoV C-89-013 (02-Jun-89) NoV C-89-013 occurred directly because of Mid-Continent's commitment to the Division to assess additional or alternative sediment control measures to ensure compliance for the Outfall No. 016 ponds. Several methods were attempted and evaluated for reduction of sediment loading to these ponds. The addition of turbid mine water to coal on the overland raw coal conveyor belt was one such attempt with the unanticipated result of some beltline coal spillage. The practice was stopped. No off-site damage occurred.