My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE29193
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE29193
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:36:16 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:10:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/27/1990
Doc Name
TEN DAY NOTICE X-90-02-244-3 PEABODY COAL CO NUCLA MINE PERMIT C-81-008
From
MLRD
To
OSM
Violation No.
CV1990035
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Robert Hagen - 2 - August 27, 1990 <br />contributions of sediment to streamflow or runoff outside the Dermit area, and <br />to minimize erosion and provide protection for toposil. This was cited as a <br />violation of C.R.S. 34-33-120 (2)(e) and (j) (II), Rules 4.05.5(1)(a)and (c) <br />and 4.06.3(2)(a)(i) and permit application Dockage Tab 22, page 22-6, Seed Mix <br />#3 Section. Our inspector indicated to the OSM representatives that this NOV <br />would be issued from the office after review of the permit to determine any <br />commitments for sediment control measures. <br />The conditions which lead to issuance of TV 3 are as follows: Culvert C-21 is <br />properly installed under the haul road to pit 3. Part of this proper <br />installation includes a filter blanket apron and riprap below the outlet. <br />There is some erosion noted downslope from the culvert riprap on the inslope <br />of the pond. We do not believe that these conditions indicate a "Failure to <br />prevent erosion at culvert outlet" under Rule 4.03.2(4)(e)(iii) for the <br />following reasons. First, the culvert in question is located under a haul <br />road not an access road. Second, the culvert outlet was protected from <br />erosion as required by permit application package Tab 13, pages 13-16, 13-21, <br />and 13-22. Rather, we believe that erosion at the pond inlet reflects a <br />permitting defect. In the past, Peabody has proposed that inlet armoring be <br />placed down to the level of the primary spillway. This seemed to be a prudent <br />cutoff point assuming that water would remain in the pond below this level and <br />would therefore neutralize the erosive energy of incoming water. This plan <br />and assumption was accepted and approved by the Division. However, recent <br />experience has shown that perhaps this was not a Drudent assumption. <br />Therefore, we have imposed a requirement that Peabody submit a revision to <br />change this aspect of the permit application package and will require <br />stabilization of sediment pond inlets down to a stable elevation as determined <br />by typical water levels in the ponds. <br />If you have any questions please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~ ccati~,,~l,~ <br />Susan J. McC non <br />Senior Reclamation Specialist <br />SJM/yj b <br />cc: Carl Mount <br />9714E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.