1990-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 7/9/1990
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Michael B. Long 2
The TDN cites Colorado regulation CCMR 4.06.4(2) (d) as the regulation
believed to have been violated for violation 1 of 9. The TDN states
that the coal mine operator failed to protect topsoil after it was
redistributed on the old refuse pile.
AFO assumes that your response to this violation is based on MLRD's rill
and gully policy. The rill and gully plan is not the issue here; the
problem is that the company has failed to take steps to protect topsoil
redistributed on the refuse pile. MLRD's rill and gully policy only
comes into effect when the company has, in fact, placed mulch and seed
cover on the area. The policy does not cover the interim stages of
topsoil redistribution and its protection. There is also no comment
from your office to indicate that field-implemented requirements to
abate the violation have been initiated by the operator. MLRD's failure
to address the violation in accordance with the requirements of
Colorado's program constitutes an arbitrary and capricious response.
Therefore, OSM finds MLRD's response to violation 1 of 9 to be
inappropriate.
The TDN cites Colorado regulation 4.05.2(1) as the regulation believed
to have been violated for violation 2 of 9. The TDN states that the
operator failed to pass drainage from the disturbed area through a
sediment pond or a treatment facility before leaving the permit area.
Two separate areas were cited as being in violation: The lamphouse yard
and the french drain outfall for the Sutey Waste pile. In the instance
of the first area, MLRD'S response indicates that the drainage from the
lamphouse yard is controlled and directed to the tunnel pad pond.
AFO agrees that a portion of the drainage from that yard was directed to
the tunnel pad pond at the time of the inspection. However, there was
sufficient evidence to indicate that part of the area drained off site
without passing through a sediment pond or other approved means before
leaving the permit area. Given the absence of untreated flows bypassing
the pond, a violation clearly exists. MLRD's failure to address the
violation in accordance with the requirements of Colorado's program
constitutes an arbitrary and capricious response. Therefore, OSM finds
MLRD's response to violation 2 of 9 for the drainage control on the
lamphouse yard to be inappropriate.
The second area cited in violation 2 of 9 was identified as the outfall
for the french drain on the Sutey Waste Pile. Your response indicated
that MLRD is addressing this violation as a permit defect. The Division
has required the operator to submit a Minor Revision with the necessary
information by December 15, 1989. You also indicated that
implementation following approval is based on weather conditions and the
nature of the approved treatment system.