Laserfiche WebLink
that such a project would require an amendment to change the post - mining land <br />use and reclamation plan, providing the following direction: "No construction <br />activities related to anything other than the currently approved reclamation as a <br />developed water resource may take place in Cell 1 until that area is sufficiently <br />reclaimed and released from the permit. Any significant change, such as the <br />incorporation of activities related to the anticipated final use as a water treatment <br />plant [sic] will require a permit amendment." <br />4. On May 15, 2009, the Division reviewed and approved a technical <br />revision to the permit, TR -03, to change only the shoreline configuration of the <br />northernmost excavated cell. <br />5. On April 2, 2012, the Division received a written complaint alleging <br />excessive fugitive dust from shale stockpiles created as a result of construction of a <br />municipal wastewater treatment plan in the permit area. <br />6. The Division conducted an inspection of the site on April 17, 2012. <br />Gary Stillmunkes, representing the Operator, attended the inspection. The <br />Division observed that approximately 400,000 cubic yards (operator estimate of <br />volume) of shale had been excavated and stockpiled on -site, contrary to the <br />approved mining and reclamation plan. The Division observed that the unapproved <br />stockpiles have not been stabilized. The Division also observed that no topsoil <br />appeared to have been salvaged prior to placing the shale stockpiles and that <br />several structures associated with a new municipal water treatment plant for the <br />City of Erie have been constructed on site. <br />7. On April 26, 2012, the Division sent the Operator a Reason to Believe a <br />Violation Exists letter which provided notice regarding the alleged violation and the <br />April 2012 hearing. <br />8. The Operator failed to comply with the reclamation plan, failed to <br />stabilize and protect the surface area of affected land, failed to preserve topsoil, and <br />failed to comply with the performance warranty. <br />9. The Division holds a financial warranty for the site in the amount of <br />$1,310,224. The cost to return the stockpiled material to the excavation is an <br />additional $365,000. <br />10. In May 2009, the Operator was cited in regard to the Speer Resources <br />site for failing to perform reclamation activities prescribed by the reclamation plan <br />(MV- 2009 -015) and failing to minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic <br />balance (MV- 2009 -016). The Operator resolved the violations by submitting a <br />permit amendment, Amendment AM04, to the Division in August 2009; the <br />Division approved Amendment AMO4 in January 2010. <br />Asphalt Specialties Co., Inc. <br />M- 2004 -009 <br />MV- 2012 -020 <br />2 <br />