Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fred Banta <br />February 15, 1990 <br />Page 3 <br />A prime example concerns berms around topsoil <br />stockpiles along the tie-across haul road (TAHR) at <br />Seneca II-W. The TAHR is a haul road, and, as such, <br />is exempt from sediment control pursuant to Rule <br />- 4.03.1. The road and adjacent associated topsoil <br />stockpiles were all constructed in conformance to the <br />approved permit. On our own volition Peabody also <br />added containment berms around the stockpiles to <br />assure that no topsoil would be lost before they were :_ - _ - <br />stabilized with vegetation. The berms were totally <br />voluntary. <br />Now, as we understand it, OSM has made a <br />determination that stockpiles along haul roads are <br />not included in the sediment control exemptions. We <br />have been instructed to apply for a small area <br />exemption under Rule 4.05.2(3). This exemption will <br />require designed berms around the stockpiles, and is <br />being required to be submitted as a technical <br />revision to the PAP simply because it involves a <br />"regulated structure" (see letter to J.S. Lunan from <br />Carl Mount, February 7, 1990). The change will <br />entail nothing more than potentially increasing the <br />size of containment berms which were voluntarily <br />installed in the first place. Clearly this is a <br />minor change (as a sidelight, how is there an <br />exemption from sediment control, when such exemption <br />requires sediment control, as detailed in your Small <br />Area Exemption Handbook Memorandum?). <br />The above examples illustrate how the Department is <br />currently interpreting the definitions of technical and <br />minor revisions. Other situations could also be cited. <br />It is apparent that, within the scope of current <br />departmental policy, virtually any modification to the <br />permit can be called a technical revision. This policy <br />appears to be negating the minor revision provisions of <br />the regulations (including the potential use of field <br />minor revisions). In an area like Routt County, the <br />difference between a 20 day approval schedule for a minor <br />revision, and a 70 day approval schedule for a technical <br />revision can mean a difference in operation or <br />construction scheduling of five or six months because of <br />weather. <br />Peabody has appreciated past efforts by the Division in <br />making timely and, in some cases, emergency responses to <br />requests- .for changes. All this has been done in <br />compliance with the existing regulations and definitions. <br />- However, it appears that recent_ changes in i-nterpretation <br />