1988-06-20_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

ENT OF F - United States Department of the Interior TAIG ANE ° OFFICE OF SURFACE MININGW� RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT ,�ti 3 310� �g�q SUITE 625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 In Reply Refer To: MAY 12 1988 4480 SFP Mr. Fred Banta, Director Mined Land Reclamation Division Department of Natural Resources 423 Centennial Building _ :•< 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Re: MLRD Response to Ten-Day Notice No. 88-02-244-2 (TVI) for the Coal Basin Mines, Permit No. C-017-81 Dear Mr. Banta: AFO received MLRD's written response to the above Ten-Day Notice on May 5, 1988. The response is timely. AFO finds the Division's response to the violation to be inappropriate. Violation No. 1: The Division's response that drainage is not being directed over the outslope of the Sutey Refuse Pile is not correct. Snow, as it melts, is considered runoff when it is part of the discharge from any of the sediment ponds located on this property. Exemptions for this type of runoff also have been granted for the effluent requirements of the treatment facilities on the property as well as other mines located throughout Colorado. The regulations are clear about directing runoff over the face of a waste pile, and AFO interprets that to include snow that is being pushed off the top of the pile onto the embankment downslope. The Division commented about the temporary ponding of water at the outlet of the bench, which they interpret as the only place where water was accumulating appreciably on that bench. From Ms. Thompson's description of the situation, it would seem that the outlet of the bench is designed wrong. The outlet should not back water up unless it was facing uphill or the waste was backed up far enough that it blocked the downhill side. I checked the latter possibility with Mr. Fritz, and it is my understanding that the waste running down the access road was not backed up to the outfall when they inspected the area, thus eliminating that scenario. The remark was also made that the first foot of the bench was mucky and wet from freeze and thaw cycles. One might agree with that concept had the bulldozer not passed through that bench within the past few days. Mr. Fritz informed me that he inspected the pile earlier in the week. During that time, a comment was made by the AFO inspector about the drainage on the bench. Mr. Jones responded by pulling the compaction machinery off the job on the top of the pile and directed the operator to go up through the bench with the bulldozer. One would think that the foot of waste that is freezing and thawing would have been eliminated at that time.