1990-08-13_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

Fred R. Banta, Director August 10, 1990 MLRD, Denver, CO 80203 Page 9 Outfall No. 016 ponds, Mid-Continent acted properly in attempting to improve the treatment system, and actively pursuing additional methods. This violation did not occur as a result of indifference or inattention to the law or the Company's responsibilities; rather, just the opposite. Immediate remedial steps were taken to abate the violation, including hand-cleaning of the area. The Justification for Settlement notes that "there is no evidence the coal fines drained yt into Dutch Creek . . . . " ,'� C-89-017 (26-May-89) No Sediment Control for Topsoil Stockpile Civil Penalty History $50 Seriousness $250 Fault 250 Good Faith -0- Total $550 In preparing an expansion of its preparation plant reject refuse pile, the Sutey refuse pile, Mid-Continent cleared topsoil and constructed a topsoil storage pile. Because of a permitting oversight, no long-term sediment control measures been designed and approved before the NoV was issued. However, due to the fact that the refuse pile expansion was then actively under construction, with heavy equipment making regular deliveries of topsoil to the storage pile, no permanent sediment control measures were feasible. On noting the omission, Mid-Continent requested permit permission to install a sediment control system at the topsoil pile. The work of preparing the MR request, which included calculations and designs, began during the week preceding MLRD's decision to issue the NoV. MLRD, it should be noted, wrote a letter to say an MR would be required for drainage measures to be implemented upon completion of the expansion of the stockpile. The essential issue of NoV C-89-017 related to placement of hay bales at the perimeter of the topsoil pile to provide temporary sediment control during the time the pile was under construction. There is no practical difference in the on-the-ground compliance for which permitting was required.