Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes, September 22-23, 1993 DRAFT 45 <br />Subject To Board Approval <br />sedimentation control. <br />Mr. Paul said the operator's position was that the areas in <br />question are disturbed and that the NOV is invalid, because it <br />is factually incorrect, and that the NOV should be vacated on <br />the basis of that issue. <br />Board Member Stewart discussed this issue in detail with Staff <br />and the operator's representatives. She said that she fe1C <br />the three areas of the NOV should be dealt with independently, <br />because the areas of the Grizzly Pad and the shops facilities <br />were impacted by snow and the E-12 G~lvert outlet was affected <br />by the flow or runoff of coal through the transport of water. <br />In response to an inquiry from the Board, Staff and Mr. Paul <br />said they felt it was appropriate to consider the three areas <br />simultaneously. <br />Mr. Paul lead a discussion of the ditch, haul road and culvert <br />area. Mr. Beverlin stated that there was not a failure to <br />have sediment control in place. He said the areas in question <br />were not permanently reclaimed and that they were within areas <br />authorized for disturbance. Mr. Beverlin said the coal fines <br />are non-toxic and would not adversely impact vegetation. He <br />also briefly discussed a problem he said the operator <br />experienced with the sediment control section of the <br />regulations. <br />Staff explained that sediment ponds are in place at the site, <br />but that the area between the sediment ponds and the areas of <br />the NOV includes reclaimed areas on which coal fines should <br />not have been deposited. <br />Mr. Erickson discussed the cleanup of the snow, coal fines and <br />mud at the site. Mr. Paul said the operator's opinion was <br />that the matter related to an incidental deposition of coal <br />fines which was removed during seasonal cleanup of the site, <br />rather than an intentional deposition of coal. <br />Staff summarized by saying that the Division, using its best <br />judgment, made some observations in the field. Staff said the <br />observations were that in one area, fines were determined to <br />have been deposited on virgin topsoil and vegetation. Staff <br />said the other observation was that coal fines were deposited <br />in an area which supports reclamation species. Staff said the <br />Rules require the Division to issue a violation when fines or <br />sediment is placed on an undisturbed area. Staff said the <br />Division feels that the facts support its conclusion. <br />