Laserfiche WebLink
' Mr. Luke Danielson <br />July 26, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />pond regulatory requirements by OSM. Therefore, the Division was no longer <br />appealing the interpretation, though the Division could not give a clear definition of <br />which sediment control measures would not be held to fall under the impoundment <br />regulations. In fact, in one case in Colorado, the OSM interpretation of impoundments <br />was extended to a berm around a topsoil pile (originally required by the Division and <br />OSM to prevent topsoil loss). <br />Subsequently, Sun Coal prevailed in vacating the notice of violation by virtue of <br />addressing the concerns through a permit revision. However, Sun Coal remains <br />concerned that interpretations regarding sediment control measures addressed, and in <br />fact, encouraged by the regulations, will be post facto redefined into other categories <br />with more stringent regulatory requirements. Sun Coal wishes the Board to address the <br />sediment traps at the Meadows No. I Mine, and establish whether these structures fall <br />under the temporary impoundment regulations (Rule 4.05.9(2)). <br />We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this petition with the Board further, and <br />look forward to an interpretation which we can base future actions upon. Thank you. <br />Sincerely, <br />Bryan J. Archer <br />Mine Manager <br />cc: Mr. Michael Long, Director <br />Mr. Susan Burgmaier, Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Mr. Michael Savage, Savage and Savage, Inc. <br />