Laserfiche WebLink
.. ., .~ • <br />ft is the position of Oakridge that there was no violation of the <br />performance standards or its permit because the culverts were installed and <br />maintained in a manner to pass the design requirement of the regulations. <br />R is reasonable for an operator b install structures which have a margin of <br />fle~dbility to accommodate just this type of occurrence. <br />A further test of reasonableness would tell us that there would be <br />ocosianal sediment build-up or occasional mashing of culverts in all mining <br />operations and that the operator would evaluate at which point maintenance <br />is required. The extrapolation of the use of the NOV to dictate maintenance <br />of structures prior m the infringement of the performance standard appears <br />to be an unreasonable and unnecessary enforcement action. <br />t-ashy, although it is not derivative to the lads of merit of the NOV, the <br />written form of the above captioned NOV is inaccurate and misleading. I <br />would cal{ your attention to the "blocked" and "crushed" used in the NOV. <br />The pictures on file with the Division confirm that the culverts were minimally <br />obstruded and continued to be fundional. <br />Perhaps it is of no consequence, but the Carbon Junction Mine is in <br />temporary cessation and is nxauired to only conduct water testing and meet <br />the performance standards. Accordingly, facility maintenance is strictly <br />needed to adhere to the performance standard the pass the 10yr. 24hr. <br />event. <br />In condusion, we respectfully request that the Division vacate the <br />above optioned NOV. We apprecate your consideration of this matter. <br />Should you have questions, please feel free to 011. <br />Sin ly, <br />J <br />D A. Fergu n <br />Oakridge Energy, Inc. <br />cc: Sandra Pautsky <br />Jim Hendricks <br />