Laserfiche WebLink
<br />III. Comments - Compliance <br />~? <br />Below are comments on the in J ction. The comments include discussion of <br />observations made during the i, '~ection. Comments also describe any <br />enforcement actions taken Burin' "`e~inpsection and the facts or evidence <br />supporting the enforcement action. <br />On 4ugust 3, 1990 a performance bond reduction inspection was <br />conducted at the Fruita Mine (interim permit number 73-60/UG/C <br />and withdrawn permit number C-81-018). This inspection was <br />conducted pursuant to rule 3.03.2(2). This mine, under the <br />interim permit, has its antire ~tinit area on private land and <br />311 coal mined is private fee c~E1. Present at the inspection <br />was Afred G. Hoyl and Mre. Hoyl who are the lessees of the <br />surface area of of the disturbed area of the mine. At the time <br />of the inspection the weathir was clear and dry. It had rained a <br />consideratle amount in the past week as evident on the drive to <br />thie mine site. In several places where the county road crossed <br />arroyos the road was .covered with sediment and debris. The <br />bottom of the sediment ponds at the mine were muddy. <br />The American Shield Coal Company has requested that the Division <br />redu~~e the bond from 3141,00 to ~A0,000. This company based <br />there request on the fact that the fruita mine was never fully <br />constructed as approved in the interim permit 579-60/UG/C thus <br />never incurred the full liability of 3141,000. American Shield <br />also performed some reclamation of the disturbed areas which <br />further reduced the liability. The Division reviowed the <br />reclamation plans for the Fruita mine and determined that it <br />would cost the Division 390,000 to perform the reclamation. The <br />Division's calculations are available for public review at the <br />Denver office. <br />It was noted during this inspection that all surface structures <br />except a concrete bin well had been removed. This bin wall is <br />located on the lower portal bench and could be dozed off the <br />highwall and backfilled. This task would not add to to the <br />reclamation liability. The portals had been backfilled with <br />earth. It could not be determined how far back the backfill was <br />placed; MSHA requires a minimum of ?5 feet. <br />From this ir~spe%ticn and from the bonding estimates performed by <br />tha Di.~iei~n, a bond reduction and release from 3141,000 to <br />4.90,000 would leave enough money for the Division to reclaim the <br />mine. <br />.. .- ~. .w.__... _ ._ _ 4k -. _- - _i~n.t-'. -~ <br />