Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Robert Hagen, AFO - 2 - December 28, 1989 <br /> Issue 1 . In addition, there is no discussion or evidence D resented that <br /> indicates any topsoil was lost. A close examination of the area was not made <br /> during the inspection due to snow cover. While the MLRD inspection in <br /> December was unable to confirm the reclamation claimed by the operator, <br /> because of subsequent snowfall , MLRD believes that there is still no evidence <br /> offered that the reouired reclamation was not performed and that the topsoil <br /> was not properly protected, seeded and mulched or that any topsoil was lost or <br /> contaminated. Under such circumstances, MLRD does not believe that a <br /> violation has occurred. There has been no evidence of a violation presented <br /> to date. The operator had until the end of the year to perform the <br /> reclamation and there is no evidence that any topsoil has been lost or the <br /> reclamation has not been completed. <br /> Issue 2. This is an alleaed violation of Rule 4.05.2(1 ) involvina runoff from <br /> a portion of the lamphouse yard. The area of the yard specifically identified <br /> in the OSM inspection report as the problem was that portion involved in <br /> installation of a mine water pipeline. This problem was not clearly <br /> identified by the OSM inspector during the inspection, and there was no <br /> problem apparent in this regard to the MLRD representative. The OSM <br /> inspection report provides the only basis for the TDN issued so far as the <br /> Division is concerned. That report indicates there was a lack of Droper <br /> berming to eliminate runoff from the construction area and that sediment laden <br /> water was flowing off the area around and thru recent construction. There is <br /> no violation of the cited rule unless this runoff is shown to be by passing <br /> the functioning sediment pond provided to receive and treat that runoff. The <br /> OSM inspector did not specify at the site or in his report how the pond is <br /> bypassed or where the disturbed area runoff reaches the natural drainages <br /> without treatment. In addition, the MLRD inspector did not identify any areas <br /> where the sediment control system was bypassed The Division contends there is <br /> no violation of the rule cited. There is no evidence presented that indicates <br /> that the approved sediment control system was bypassed or that runoff was <br /> leaving the site untreated. <br /> Issue 3. The Division is not requesting review of this issue. However, since <br /> our original response new information has been made available which warrants <br /> further review by the Division._ We will reinspect the site the week of <br /> January 2 and determine what type of action may be appropriate. <br /> If I can be of any further assistance in this re Gard, please contact me. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Michael B. Lona <br /> Coal Program Supervisor <br /> MBL/ern <br /> cc: Bill Crick, MLRD <br /> 2608E <br />