Laserfiche WebLink
s <br />TR-52 verified that the sediment control structures (sediment pond, ditch, road, etc.) were <br />constructed as designed as required by Rule 4.05.9(14). Modifications to the original <br />design were incorporated into the as-built and reviewed by the Division. As-built <br />certifications are required following the construction of all structures with engineered <br />designs. As-built certifications are not meant to allow an operator to drill additional <br />boreholes on a pad and submit an as-built in lieu of submitting the proper permit revision. <br />The Division believes that TR-53 is a more appropriate analogy. In TR-53 OMLLC <br />submitted the locations, designs and disturbances associated with the drilling of 15 <br />methane degas boreholes. As a follow-up to TR-53, OMLLC is required to submit well <br />completion reports for each hole drilled. An as-built certification is not required. If there <br />aze changes to the drill pad locations, road locations or additional holes aze needed, a <br />separate revision must be submitted. <br />Oxbow also suggests that since the Division did not calculate an increase in bond liability <br />for TR-51, they were allowed to drill as many boreholes on the fan pad as necessary. <br />Although the calculation of a reclamation cost estimate and the increasing of the mine's <br />bond liability was overlooked by the Division, this does not give an operator the <br />permission to go beyond what was contemplated in the revision application. The <br />Division requires operators to get approval (in the form of a TR, MR or PR) for <br />construction work done on the site. The azgument that no reclamation cost estimate was <br />calculated, allowed them to drill additional boreholes is not warranted. <br />In conclusion, I think that the issuance of NOV CV-2006-001 on 23 January 2006 was <br />the correct decision. Oxbow drilled an additional permanent borehole that was not <br />permitted at the Hubbard Creek Fan site. I do not agree that additional holes can be <br />drilled and permitted later. Therefore, I do not believe the violation should be vacated. <br />All of the documents related to TR-49, 51, 52 and 53 as well as NOV CV-2006-001 aze <br />in the imaging system. I have the file for Minor Revision 76 with me in West Virginia <br />but Kent has one complete copy of the submittal. Please let me know if you need any <br />additional information. <br />cc: Sandy Brown <br />