My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35097
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35097
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:47 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:28:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
5/6/1991
Doc Name
TEN DAY LETTER X-91-02-370-003-TV NEW ELK MINE C-81-012
From
MLRD
To
OSM
Violation No.
TD1991020370003TV4
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Robert Hagen <br />May 3, 1991 <br />The structures in question do not fall under the definition of sedimentation <br />pond but do appear to fall under the broader definition of impoundment. They <br />are not, however, because of their intended function and location subject to <br />the size limitations of "small depressions" nor to the requirements of the <br />impoundment regulations under Rule 4.05.9. Small depressions are mentioned <br />under Federal Rule 715.14 and State Rule 4.14.2(3) which deal specifically <br />with backfilled and graded areas. The areas associated with the structures in <br />question at New Elk are not backfilled and graded. The size restrictions <br />applicable to small depressions in such reclaimed areas where fill stability <br />and compatibility of structures with postmining land use are also <br />considerations do not apply. As for being impoundments subject to Rule <br />4.05.9, the structures in question are clearly intended, designed, constructed <br />and maintained as non-discharging sediment control structures. No beneficial <br />use is intended for the water contained by these structures. <br />The structures are not sedimentation ponds, therefore the Division does not <br />propose to have them so designated and reconstructed. While they may be <br />primary sediment control devices, areas approved for exemption under Rule <br />4.05.2(3) may have such without being designated sedimentation ponds or <br />treatment facilities. Consequently, the Division will take action to address <br />the permit defect by requiring the operator to submit a minor revision to the <br />permit by June 1, 1991 proposing all areas draining into these structures, if <br />not previously approved as such, to be exempt from normal sediment control and <br />providing demonstrations that the containment structures in question will <br />retain, without discharging, a 10 year/24 hour event or will otherwise satisfy <br />the requirements of Rule 4.05.2(3). Receipt of a complete minor revision <br />application by June 1 should allow the Division to approve it within 10 days <br />and its incorporation into permit narrative and representation on permit area <br />maps within another 10 days, following expiration of the public comment period. <br />If you have any questions regarding the above, please call. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~ - <br />Steven G. Renner <br />Coal Program Supervisor <br />cc: Jim Stevens <br />SGR/scg <br />5285E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.