Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Steve Renner 2 <br />grading to assure proper drainage and the amount of topsoil are considered part of <br />the backfilling and grading requirements. If the site were contemporaneously <br />reclaimed in an appropriate manner, these violations would not exist. An <br />appropriate action by DMG should have required PCC to properly grade the refuse <br />piles and cover with four feet of the best available non-toxic and non-combustible <br />material within a reasonable time, not to exceed ninety days. Proper grading of <br />the refuse piles means that the piles must be graded to the approved final <br />specifications up to the active lift. This would include the final drainage <br />specifications resolving the issue of the corrugated metal pipes. <br />Colorado Rule 4.10.4(5), requires a minimum of four feet of cover material on coal <br />mine waste banks. The regulation then goes on to state, "* * * The Division may <br />allow less than 4 feet of cover material based on physical and chemical analyses <br />which show that the requirements of (the revegetation regulations) will be met." <br />Absent this approval from DMG, PCC has been under the requirement since the <br />piles were started to contemporaneously reclaim the Cameo Refuse Disposal <br />Areas #1 and #2, including placing a minimum of four feet of cover material. <br />The Colorado program does not allow a waiver from the four foot cover rule unless <br />DMG has approved a different standard based on approval of chemical and <br />physical analyses. While the Colorado program encourages the use of field trials, <br />the field trials rule at section 4.15.6 does not grant DMG the authority to waive, <br />even temporarily, the Colorado Rules. The approval to place less than four feet of <br />cover material has not yet been granted; therefore, PCC should have been <br />covering the completed lifts with four feet of cover material. Instead, DMG has <br />allowed PCC to study the issue of alternate cover material depth for nine years. <br />DMG has not provided AFO with documentation from the approved permit or from <br />the approval letters themselves that the field trials on the Roadside pile have, in <br />fact, been extended for an additional five years. The plan for the field trials shows <br />in the timetable that the trials were to occur August 15, 1983 to August 31, 1983, <br />with monitoring (field trial test plots) continuing for five years unless success is <br />determined to be adequate. This language indicates that if what DMG propounds; <br />i.e. the field trials were to last for ten years, then there would be a revision to the <br />permit sometime in 1988 that extended the trial period. AFO has never been <br />shown this revision to the plan. DMG has only offered an internal memorandum <br />dated May 4, 1990, from one DMG staff member to another, that was written as a <br />review of the evaluation of the test plots that PCC submitted to DMG. At that time <br />PCC had not submitted a revision to the permit as evidenced by the statement, <br />"* * * It is anticipated that Powderhorn will be submitting a technical revision <br />application to allow for replacement of less than 4 feet of cover soil for both the <br />Roadside and Cameo waste disposal areas in the future." The only place in this <br />