Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />z' <br />Mr. Dan T. Mathews 2 <br />dispose of non-coal waste materials * * *"• "* * * large amounts of <br />debris, * * * will not be allowed to accumulate * * *"; and "Lumber, <br />debris * * * will be transported by approved carrier to the nearby <br />County landfill for proper disposal." (Volume I; 4.3.6 Special <br />Materials Handling; page 4-76.) <br />Apparently, the alleged violation has been addressed by the operator. <br />Although the operator has informed the Division that the noncoal <br />material has been cleaned up, AFO cannot deem MLRD's response to be good <br />cause for not taking enforcement because the alleged violation no longer <br />exists, until AFO is notified that a State follow-up inspection is <br />conducted that confirms the condition of the site. <br />In violation 2 of 5, the TDN cites Rule 4.05.7 as the rule believed to <br />have been violated. The TDN states that the operator failed to maintain <br />the diversion ditch discharge structure. <br />Your response states that MLRD acknowledges that normal wear to the <br />ditch lining has occurred but the ditch remains functional to minimize <br />erosion, and no violation exists at this time. <br />AFO accepts MLRD's description of the ditch lining as being functional, <br />although normal wear to the fabric is observable; maintenance may be in <br />order, taking the citizen complainant's description into account, <br />Therefore, AFO deems MLRD's response appropriate because no violation <br />exists at this time based on field conditions. <br />In violation 3 of 5, the TDN cites Rules 4.02.3 and .4 as the rules <br />believed to have been violated. The TDN states that the operator failed <br />to post and maintain perimeter markers. <br />Your response states that Notice of Violation (NOV) C-90-032 was issued <br />for failure to post perimeter markers.--AFO accepts MLRD's response of <br />writing an NOV as being an appropriate response, <br />In violation 4 of 5, the TDN cites Rule 4.15.2(2) as the rule believed <br />to have been violated. The TDN states that the operator failed to <br />prevent establishment of noxious weeds on the berm of Pond A. <br />Your response states that the Rule 4.15.2(2) was cited inappropriately <br />and refers to the Colorado Guideline for Management of Noxious Weeds on <br />Reclaimed Land (Guideline). <br />The response states that a bindweed and knapweed infestation was <br />identified during MLRD's citizen complaint inspection, but MLRD <br />requested the permittee representative to submit a weed management plan. <br />The response also states that there is no violation of the rule cited. <br />AFO concurs with the improper rule citation and reviewed the Guideline <br />document. AFO noted at III. Operator Responsibility for Management of <br />Noxious Weeds during Operations (page 3) that "The Division may take an <br />enforcement action using a combination of the above cited rules if: <br />