Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Hagen - 2 - October 18, 1990 <br />As a result of the above, the Division declines to issue a violation in regard <br />to the perceived issue for good cause. There is no violation of the permit or <br />of State Regulations for which the permittee is responsible. The Division <br />specifically authorized activities within the area adjacent to Trout Creek <br />without any clear exceptions. No buffer was specified by the Division nor <br />required to be designated by the operator although there was a requirement <br />that any buffer zone be marked. This constitutes a permit defect which the <br />Division is taking appropriate action to address within a specified time. <br />Alleged violation 2: This involves "failure to demonstrate that sedimentation <br />pons an treatment facilities are not necessary for the drainage from the <br />approved small area exemption sites, i.e. the office and fan pad, will meet <br />the effluent limitations of Rule 4.05.2 and the applicable State and Federal <br />water quality requirements for downstream receiving waters." Colorado <br />Regulation 4.05.2(31(al is cited in support of the alleged violation. <br />As is indicated in TR-03 (copy attached), both areas cited above were approved <br />by the Division for exemption from the requirements of Rule 4.05.2. This <br />approval was granted based on the operator's arguments that the areas were <br />small, the office area was graveled and the fan portal heavily vegetated. <br />Also involved in the approval were the Division's knowledge of the site <br />conditions, and hydrologic experience. <br />The cited rule, however, does state that the operator must provide the <br />demonstration that certain specific limits are met by the effluent from the <br />exempt area. As a result, the operator will be required to furnish such a <br />demonstration in the form of a Minor Revision to the permit. Notice of this <br />requirement will be sent by October 24, 1990 and the submittal of the revision <br />required by November 30, 1990. Approval of the proposed revision, under state <br />rules, should be made within 10 days following its receipt. <br />As a result of the above, the Division declines to issue a violation in regard <br />to this problem for good cause. There is no violation of the conditions of <br />the permit or of the Regulations for which the operator can be held <br />accountable. The Division approved the operator's request for Qxemptions for <br />both areas without the necessary documentation, The absence of this <br />documentation, therefore, is a permit defect. The Division is taking <br />appropriate action to address this defect by requiring the necessary <br />demonstration within a specified time. <br />If you have any questions, please call. <br />Sincerely, , - ,_ <br />Dan T. Mathews <br />Acting Coal Program Supervisor <br />DT14/ern <br />cc: David Canning <br />James Stevens, MLRD <br />0776E <br />