Laserfiche WebLink
28 <br /> Mr. Dave Beverlin discussed the culvert discharge and the <br /> other areas of the NOV in detail . <br /> Mr. Paul said that the NOV stated that coal was being <br /> deposited on undisturbed areas in all three instances. He <br /> said that the operator' s opinion was that this was not correct <br /> in each of the three instances. Mr. Paul said that the <br /> operator was within disturbed area boundaries in each case. <br /> He said the Culvert E-12 is a road ditch which leads to <br /> sedimentation control . <br /> Mr. Paul said the operator's position was that the areas in <br /> question are disturbed and that the NOV is invalid, because it <br /> is factually incorrect, and that the NOV should be vacated on <br /> the basis of that issue. <br /> Board Member Stewart discussed this issue in detail with Staff <br /> and the operator' s representatives. She said that she felt <br /> the three areas of the NOV should be dealt with independently, <br /> because the areas of the Grizzly Pad and the shops facilities <br /> were impacted by snow and the E-12 Culvert outlet was affected <br /> by the flow or runoff of coal through the transport of water. <br /> Staff and Mr. Paul said they felt it was appropriate to <br /> consider the three areas simultaneously. <br /> Mr. Beverlin stated that there was not a failure to have <br /> sediment control in place. He said the areas in question were <br /> not permanently reclaimed and that they were within areas <br /> authorized for disturbance. Mr. Beverlin said the coal fines <br /> are non-toxic and would not adversely impact vegetation. <br /> Staff explained that sediment ponds are in place at the site, <br /> but that the area between the sediment ponds and the areas of <br /> the NOV includes reclaimed areas on which coal fines should <br /> not have been deposited. <br /> Mr. Wayne Erickson discussed the cleanup of the snow, coal <br /> fines and mud at the site. <br /> Staff summarized by saying that the Division, using its best <br /> judgment, made some observations in the field. Staff said the <br /> observations were that in one area, fines were determined to <br /> have been deposited on virgin topsoil and vegetation. Staff <br /> said the other observation was that coal fines were deposited <br /> in an area which supports reclamation species. Staff said the <br /> Rules require the Division to issue a violation when fines or <br /> sediment is placed on an undisturbed area. Staff said the <br /> Division feels that the facts support its conclusion. <br /> A Motion to vacate the NOV failed, due to lack of a Second. <br /> The Board deliberated on the matter further. <br />