REV09300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.; , sufficient degree of confidence could be Maintained with respect to achieving the performance standards. The Secretary also noted that the Federal regulations include specific design c:itezia for excess spoil fills and the placement of materials related to mountaintop removal and steep slope mining operations. The Secretary invited Colorado in its initial program approval (45 CFR 82174, December 15, 1980) to resolve conditiea (f) by deleting the unspecified alternative design standards, or by developing specific alternative design criteria for excess spoil fills and to su¢mit these criteria to the Department for evaluatio¢. A letter dated January 7, 1982, from Colorado to OSHRE (Administrative Record No. 193) responded to Colorado's procram conditions by explaining the efforts the State had made tovard resolution of the conditions. In regard to condition (f), Colorado again presented the same arguments it had presented in 1980, prior to program approval. The new Secretary found the State's argument persuasive this time, and condition (f) vas removed. In documenting the reasons for this determination, tae Federal Revister stated that•the Federal standards for approval of State programs at 30 CFR 730.5 were amended; the amended standards gave increased flexibility to States in the development of regulations to implement Federal requirements for State programs; and tact, under the new standards, Colorado's Rule 4.09.1(3) vas no less effective than tae Federal regulatieas. Tae Secretary concluded that the State had corrected the deficieac3•, gad condition (f) was satisfied (47 FR 56344) on December 16, 1982. Based on tae above Colorado submittals and OS'SR£'s 1982 approval, Colorado has incorrectly interpreted tae alte~ate specifications to include all excess spoil fills. OSMRE's Lecember 16, 19~'_ approval was limited to Rules 4.09.1(3) (General icequiremea*_s), 4.26.2(5) (Mountaintop Removal), and 4.2'.3 t8) (Operations on Steep Slopes), and not the valley fills, head-of-hollow gills, and coal refuse banks which Congress recognized as requiring more s:.lnaent construction standards. It should also be noted Lunt, is CSMP.~'s program approval of December 15, 1980, OSMRF, recognized that in special cases Colorado operators eouid use alternate design criteria for fills if the materials met tae requirements of Ruie 4.09.4 (Durable Rock Fills). This recognition was absent with respect to approval for the other specialized :ills lvalley fills, head-of-hoiiow fills, and coal waste banks). Congress has always recognized that tae disposal of excess spoil in valley fills and head-of-hollov fills required more stringent construction standards than those fills Hader "normal" circumstances. Colorado Rules 4.09.2 and 4.D9.3 require in part that tae disposal of excess spoil in valley fills (Rule 4.09.2) and 'Head-of-aollow fills (Rule 4.09.3) shall meet all tae requirements of Ruie 4.09.1 gad the additional requirements of Rnle 4.09.2 in the case of valley fills, and the requirements of Rules 4.09.1 and 4.09.2 and the additional requirements of Rule 4.09.3 in tae case of dead-o*.- 2