INSPEC11413

• Permit No: M1990112
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 8/12/1996
• Doc Name: STATE PIT PN M-90-112 04/11/96 COMPLIANCE PROBLEM 3 GAS LINE
• From: WESTERN MOBILE
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DIVISION 01= MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmeni of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: 1303) 8b6-3567
FAX: [phone]
May 29, 1996
011 IIIIIIIIIIIII III
999
Ms. ,Julie Goettemoeller, Land Manager
West=_rn Mobile
1590 W. 12th Ave.
Denver, CO 80204

OF COLORADO
II~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
lames 5. Lochhead
Eeec uU ve Diredo~
Michael B. Long
Division Director
RE: State Pit (Permit M-90-112) Company response to compliance
problems identified during Division inspection on 4/11/96
Dear Ms. Gottemoeller:
As ]. indicated in our recent telephone conversation, I have
received the Western Mobile response referenced above. In regard to
the ~~ompliance issues addressed, I have the following comments:
Compliance Problem #1-ID Sign: While the additional
information provided in regard to the permit does not exactly
meet the requirements of Rule 3.1.12 (1) (b), as I am sure you
are aware, I will accept the effort as adequately addressing
the problem:-
Compliance Problem #2-Topsoil Stockpile: The commitment made
by the company to seed the topsoil stockpiles located along
the southern margin of the affected area by January 1997 is
accepted as adequately addressing this problem.
Compliance Problem #3-Gas Line: This is the most significant
concern I had as a result of the inspection, ie. compliance
with the apparent condition in the approved permit to maintain
50 feet of separation between the mining operation and the gas
line, As I indicated to you, in our phone conversation, I
believe that this is not only a safety issue but also a
property issue covered by a requirement of the Construction
Materials Act. Since the matter of adequate separation of the
mining operation and the gas line is in doubt as a result of
my observations in the field, I believe it necessary to either
secure a damage compensation agreement or an engineering
evaluation that the amount of separation made is adequate.
While the permit for the State Pit was issued, so far as I am
aware, without the applicant satisfying this particular
requirement, ie. Section 34-32.5-115 (4) (e) of the
Construction Materials Act, such requirement was part of the
Mined Land Reclamation Act as Section 34-32-115 (4) (d) under
which the permit was issued, should have been considered and