Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />United~ates Department of the ~erior III ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~II <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING <br />RecLmau® and F~P............t <br />WASHIIdGT~DN~ D.C. 20240 ~ ^ <br />~ 2 ~ 1999 <br />Michael B. Long, Coal Program ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ <br />Supervisor <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />215 Centennial Building JAN 2 i990 <br />1313 Shermaa Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 MINED LAND <br />• RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Dear Mr. Lo g <br />This s n response to your November 8, 1989, request for informal review of <br />the Albuaueroue Field Office Director's determination that your agency did not <br />take appropriate action or ahoy good cause for inaction with respect to <br />tea-day notice number 89-02-107-009-4. <br />The tea-day notice alleges that Energy Fuels Coal, Inc., Southfield Mine, ie <br />placing coal processing waste in layers exceeding two feet. In your request <br />for review, you explain that your agency approved a variance which alloys <br />placement of coal waste in layers up to three feet thick instead of the <br />maximum two feet specified under section 4.10 of the Colorado coal processing <br />• waste disposal rules. Although Rule 4.10 does not authorize a lift variance <br />for this class of waste, you argue that authority is provided uncle- the <br />"alternative specifications" variance alloyed under section 4.09.1(3) o_' the <br />excess spoil disposal rules. You reason that since the coal processing waste <br />rules expressly require compliance with the excess spoil disposal rules, any <br />variance provided in the excess spoil disposal rules must also apply to coal <br />waste disposal. <br />The issue of whether the "alternative specifications" variance provided under <br />Rule 4.09.1(3) is applicable to the separate and specific rules governing <br />valley fills, head of hollow fills and coal processing waste banks has been <br />previously addressed in response to your informal program amendment proposal <br />dated September 7, 1988 (No. CO-008). Ia a letter dated April 17, 1989, to <br />the Director, Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, the Albuquerque Field <br />Office Director outlined the rationale supporting the Office of Surface Mining <br />Declamation and Enforcement's position that absent any language to the <br />contrary, a specific regulatory requirement takes precedence over any <br />conflicting general provisions. Consistent with this interpretation, I find <br />that the "alternative specifications" variance alloyed under the more general <br />excess spoil disposal rules can not be used as a basis to alter the maximum <br />lift thickness requirement of the more specific coal waste disposal rules. <br />Accordingly, I am affirming the determination of the Albuquerque Field Office <br />Director. <br />i <br />L J <br />