Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Steven G. Renner <br />3 <br />state or imply that ponds containing water that is not put to a <br />beneficial use are not sedimentation ponds. AFO agrees that the <br />only intended use is for sediment control. <br />AFO disagrees with the statement that sedimentation ponds are not <br />necessary or are impractical. The ponds are necessary because the <br />regulations require them. The only condition that would not <br />require sedimentation ponds is ii the criteria for small area <br />exemptions is met. In that case, no sediment control measures <br />would be necessary. The greatest limiting factor in sedimentation <br />pond construction is sizing and location. MLRD states that all of <br />the structures are designed to be non-discharging, and the ponds <br />are already constructed in approved locations. This would indicate <br />that the ponds are not impractical. <br />AFO believes these structures to be sedimentation ponds because <br />they were constructed solely for sediment control. AFO does not <br />agree that authorizing these structure locations as SAE's will <br />address the issue. Changing the name of a structure does not <br />change i s urpose. is~turbed~area watershed <br />for these structures were approved as SAE's, any remaining ponds` <br />would still have to comply, at a minimum, with the impoundment <br />The alleged TDL violation listed is for failure to properly design <br />and construct sedimentation ponds. AFO has found that all five of <br />the structures cited are indeed sedimentation ponds. No written or <br />oral response indicates that the structures are in compliance with <br />the sedimentation pond design or construction regulations other <br />than its being designed to be non-discharging. Three of the ponds <br />have designs to contain the 10-year, 24-hour event, As defined by <br />the approved permit, Containment Area 1 pond has a watershed of <br />10.3 acres and the current capacity is shown as 2.07 acre/feet, <br />This watershed contains the non-coal waste disposal area. <br />Containment Area 2 has a watershed of 2.9 acres and the current <br />capacity is shown as 0.3 acre/feet. This watershed contains the <br />Warehouse No. 1 and associated work areas. AFO does not have the <br />design for the third pond and the other two ponds are not designed. <br />The watersheds for these ponds include runoff from the active <br />refuse beltline disturbed area and a topsoil stockpile. MLRD has <br />not indicated what event the two undisturbed ponds will contain. <br />The designs in the permit do not contain spillway and embankment <br />specifications, etc., as stated in the TDL. In light of the above, <br />Wyoming Fuel must comply with the sedimentation pond and <br />impoundment regulations for these structures, and MLRD's response <br />not requiring compliance is arbitrary and capricious and, <br />therefore, inappropriate. <br />4 of 4 - MLRD's response has been found appropriate as of the <br />May 6, 1991, response. The operator is revising its form of <br />insurance. A copy of the new insurance form will be forwarded to <br />AFO for review within 5 days of receipt by MLRD. <br />