Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Michael B. long <br />June 7, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />Sun Coal believes that this structure was approved under 4.05.5 and should not be construed to <br />be a sediment pond or impoundment requiring further design, possible modification, and <br />certification. If this is the Division's position, it is in direct contravention of Rule 4.05.5. <br />Second, and more important from an environmental protection standpoint is the fact that the <br />sediment trap is conservatively designed. If the purpose of the sediment control performance <br />standards is to ensure that sediment laden surface waters do not contribute excess sediment to <br />receiving streams below the mine site, then the Northwest Sediment Trap at the Meadows N 1 <br />Mine has fulfilled its function successfully. <br />Procedural Justification <br />If it is now, apparently, the Division's contention that the Northwest Sediment Trap constitutes <br />an impoundment or sediment pond, and was in potential conflict with the new interpretation, <br />the Division should have treated this situation as a permit defect, and required Sun Coal to <br />rectify the defect with the appropriate revision to the permit. Instead the Division, under <br />coercion from OSM issued an on-site NOV. <br />Notice of Violation C-94011 <br />History <br />This notice of violation was issued for, "failure to conduct rill and gully inspections." The <br />NOV was issued from the field on May 25, 1994. <br />Factual Justification <br />The statutory citation for the violation is "34-33-111." This section of the statute addresses <br />reclamation plan requirements and does not mention rill and gully inspections or plans. This is <br />at best an exceedingly vague and probably incorrect citation and technically negates the <br />issuance of the NOV. No violation of the cited statutory section has occurred. The regulation <br />section cited by the Division as being violated is Rule 2.05.4(2)(c). This regulation does not <br />address rill and gully inspections. This is therefore an incorrect citation and negates the <br />issuance of the NOV in its own right. No violation of the cited regulatory section has <br />occurred. <br />