ENFORCE31486 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.> Mr. Steve Renner 4 • Even if AFO ignored the permitting inconsistencies and regulatory deviations, field conditions are such that pertormance standards are in violation due to the lack of contemporaneous reclamation. DMG's response did not address the field problems outlined in the inspection report, such as: • The eroded ditches on both of the cited piles. • The top of CRDA No. 1 pile draining to the face of the pile. • The third terrace of CRDA No. 1 incorrectly graded so that it drains to the face of the pile. • The lack of certifications. • The two corrugated metal pipes that are not shown or designed in the permit. • DMG's response states that reclamation efforts at this time "would require potentially unnecessary disturbance of a nearby borrow area." This statement infers that compliance with the contemporaneous reclamation standard would constitute a new concept not contemplated by the permittee or evaluated by DMG. That is not the case. Because the initial construction techniques for the existing refuse disposal areas did not involve the salvage of useable cover material, the permit currently requires the permittee to remove the needed material from the approved borrow area. In fact, the borrow area is the approved location for the next refuse disposal site. Therefore, the disturbance of the borrow area is not only approved, it is required by the current permit. Based on the above, AFO finds DMG's response to violation 2 of 2 to be inappropriate. If you disagree with this finding, you may request an informal review in accordance with 30 CFR 842.11 (b)(1)(iii)(A). The request may be filed at this office or with the Deputy Director, OSM, 1951 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20240. Your request must be received within 5 days of receipt of this letter. A Federal inspection may be conducted after the 5-day appeal time has elapsed unless an informal review is requested.