Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fred Banta <br />February 15, 1990 <br />Page 2 <br />As such, at approximately the same time as the public <br />notice for this technical revision was being <br />published, the water rights court was also undergoing <br />its public notification process of the same <br />information by newspaper notice and direct mailing. <br />In this case, we believe a revision should not have <br />been required. <br />Peabody recently received approval of Technical <br />Revision No. 5 to the Seneca II-W permit: This <br />technical revision added a new haul road, with <br />concomitant changes in the drainage control plan, <br />additional topsoil stockpiles, and a reevaluation of <br />the bond amount based on the changes associated with <br />this revision. There was a basic disagreement <br />between Peabody and the Division concerning various <br />factors used in equipment costs in the bond <br />calculation. After all was said and done, the <br />disagreement still existed, but even using the more <br />conservative numbers generated by the Division, the <br />determination was that there was sufficient bond in <br />force. A stipulation was attached to the approval of <br />Technical Revision No. 5 to further clarify our <br />equipment factors and revised casts. This <br />information was submitted timely. However, the <br />Division indicated that Peabody had not complied <br />timely because we had not filed the response to <br />stipulation as a technical revision. We, in essence, <br />were being told that a response to a stipulation on a <br />technical revision required yet another technical <br />revision. After much discussion, the Division <br />changed its position and let the response to the <br />stipulation stand as submitted. The cost numbers are <br />currently under review. - - --- <br />3. Concerning interpretation of what constitutes a <br />technical revision relating to changes in "design of <br />a regulated structure", we believe the Division's <br />current position is that any change involving a <br />regulated structure requires a technical revision. <br />This is being construed to include changing the size <br />or location of culverts, ditches, topsoil stockpiles, <br />modification of approved pond design, etc. This <br />interpretation conceivably includes relocated <br />powerlines, the addition of support buildings, and <br />similar changes, regardless of the overall magnitude <br />of the change or its potential to modify the <br />environmental or compliance findings of the permit <br />- approval <br />