Laserfiche WebLink
~~ ~ • • <br />Analysis and Recommendation (Part 2) <br />Does a violtion exist? If so, to which company should the NOV be issued, CYCC <br />or Twenty Mile? <br />The Area 2 Pit was excavated by CYCC's area strip mining operation between <br />1978 and 1980. The 180 day contemporaneous backfilling requirement was waived <br />because, originally, the entire pit was to be utilized for facilities and <br />waste disposal associated with the underground mine. In 1983 the underground <br />mine was permitted as a separate entity from the surface mine. However, the <br />Area 2 Pit was within the boundaries of both permit areas. <br />My interpretation of the regulations is that in September of 1984, when the <br />Waste Disposal TR was approved the 180 day contemporaneous backfilling <br />requirement was again applicable. Rule 4.14.1(1)(c) states that the Division <br />may grant additional time for rough backfilling and grading if the permittee <br />can demonstrate that additional time is necessary through a detailed written <br />analysis. Such an analysis was submitted in December of 1984, and projected <br />that backfilling and grading would be completed by October, 1985. If we find <br />on our January 1986 inspection that backfilling and grading has not been <br />completed, I would be inclined to issue a Notice of Violation to CYCC for <br />"failure to complete rough backfilling and grading as contemporaneously as <br />practicable..." Given the confusion with regard to overlapping permits and <br />uncertainty of responsibility, there is probably a high probability that the <br />NOV would be vacated. However, the NOV would at least indicate to CYCC that <br />we were serious about having the reclamation completed and might speed up the <br />process of clarifying responsibilities between CYCC and TCC. <br />/tmb <br />6360E <br />