ENFORCE36918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr, Robert Hagen, OSMRE - 2 - April 17, 1990 Permit 81-036 was never issued, CYCC modified their application during the course of the permitting process so that Permit C-84-062 for Mine No. 3 alone was the first to issue under the current state program and to include the area of the pile. The circumstances surrounding the pile did not chance prior to the issuance of Permit C-84-062, therefore the Division's position did not chance. The exemption from the requirements of Rule 4.09, intended to apply to the pile under Permit 81-036, apply as well under Permit 84-062. The narrative for Permit 84-062, however, does not include mention of the structure and this exemption, The Division is requiring this deficiency in the current permit to be addressed in con,iunction with the renewal process underway. Such effort was made known to the OSM inspector during the inspection and is acknowledged in his report. This is all that the Division considers necessary or appropriate in regard to this issue. The Division does not feel the seeding of the area in 1983 and 1984, admittedly after the approval of the state program, required certification. The Division had ore viously and fully exempted the structure from the requirements of Rule 4,09. Asa result, this revegetation would only be subject to the less specific aspects of the program, ea. Rule 4.15, and the conditions of the permit existent at that time. So far as is known, nothing in violation of these reouirements has occurred. In summary, the Division declines to issue an NOV in regard to this issue for good cause. There is no violation, The Division has specifically exempted the structure from the reouirements of Rule 4,09. The operator has followed practices in regard to the structure that were approved by the Division and in compliance with applicable rules. Issue No. 2 - This is an allea_ed violation of state regulation 4,05.2(1) which env' o s failure to pass all surface drainage from disturbed area through a sedimentation pond or treatment facility before lea vi no the permit area." The area in Question is identified as "October 1983 Seeding above Homestead Ditch", The Division acknowledges that the runoff from the area specified does not pass thru a sedimentation pond or treatment facility before dntering the Homestead Ditch as required by Rule 4.05.2(1). The area, however, has been exempted by the Division from this requirement according to Rule 4.05(3) (small area exemptions). Enclosed are copies of various documents that establish the fact that this area was provided an exemption beoininq with the Findings leading to the issuance of a permit for the mine in October 1984, Stipulation No. 15 of the Findings required a plan for controlling sediment from "the disturbed area above the Homestead Ditch", Subsequent responses from CYCC and reviews from the Division proposed and refined the measures to be taken, but the intention to exempt the area prom the requirements of Rule 4.05.2(1) is clear.