Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Michael B. Long 4 <br /> The TDN cites Colorado rule 4.09.4(6) as the regulation believed to have <br /> been violated for violation 5 of 9. The TDN states that the operator <br /> failed to divert surface runoff from the outslope of the fill to properly <br /> designed channels. <br /> MLRD's response indicates that there is some question about which part of <br /> the rule has been violated, the failure to divert runoff off the surface of <br /> the fill or to pass runoff through designed channels. Of the two <br /> possibilities, MLRD interpreted the TDN as referring to the failure to <br /> divert surface drainage off the face of the fill. MLRD is correct in this <br /> assumption. With that as the premise, MLRD's response indicated that the <br /> constructed portion of the outslope of the tunnel waste pile drains as <br /> designed into approved ditches; therefore, there is no violation. In <br /> addition, the response indicated there was no water being directed over the <br /> outslope of the pile during the inspection. <br /> AFO considers MLRD's response to be good cause for not taking action. <br /> There are, however, some practices being conducted on the disposal of <br /> rock/waste and grading of the pile that should be monitored: <br /> o The disposal of trash in the temporary "winter" location on the pile <br /> may lead to the intermingling of trash with the development rock. <br /> This situation needs to be monitored closely by MLRD so as to ensure <br /> the integrity of the fill. <br /> o AFO is concerned that positive drainage be maintained for the areas <br /> that are still open for disposal. With this in mind, AFO recommends <br /> that the operator be made aware of the need to ensure positive <br /> drainage so as to limit surface-water infiltration. <br /> The TDN cites Colorado rule 4.02.2(1) as the regulation believed to have <br /> been violated for violation 6 of 9. The TDN states that the operator <br /> failed to post mine identification signs at the entrance to the permit area <br /> from public roads. <br /> MLRD's response indicates that this is a violation and has issued a Notice <br /> of Violation which is to be abated by December 15, 1989. OSM finds this <br /> action to be appropriate for violation 6 of 9 of the TDN. <br /> The TDN cites Colorado rule 4.03.2(e) as the regulation believed to have <br /> been violated for violation 7 of 9. The TDN states that the operator <br /> failed to maintain two access roads: The south fan road and a drain on the <br /> road to the No. 2 mine near the old training station. <br /> MLRD's response indicates that AFO has cited a nonexisting rule and that <br /> one of the roads mentioned in the violation is, in fact, a light-use road <br /> instead of an access road which is in a separate category for regulatory <br /> compliance. Thus, there is no violation for the road because of the <br /> different requirements for the road maintenance. Your office then <br />