Laserfiche WebLink
reports, ground water monitoring, quarterly inspections of <br />impoundments, the permit findings, AVS owners and controllers <br />information, bond, air emissions, quarterly inspections of the <br />refuse pile, and sedimentation pond "as-built" certifications. <br />*SUbsidence Monitoring - We discussed the present subsidence <br />monitoring plan at length. It is not clear what monuments the <br />permittee should be monitoring. The approved plan is worded <br />so loosely that it would be difficult to enforce or determine <br />what the permittee's exact monitoring obligations are. DMG <br />has expressed some concern about subsidence monitoring as a <br />result of the review for PR-04. <br />*AVS - The owners and controllers information obtained through <br />the AFO AVS computer does not agree with the information in <br />the approved mining and reclamation plan. Since DMG is <br />responsible for in putting the information I advised the <br />representatives of the concern. The information in the <br />approved MRP is more current. <br />*Bond - The legal description described on the bond appears to <br />be relative to the initial permanent program permit even <br />though the bond is dated 7/22/92. The dollar amount expressed <br />on the bond appears to be correct. I advised the DMG <br />representatives that in accordance with the Colorado rules at <br />Section 3.02.1 the bond description should be revised. The <br />present bond indicates the bonded area is 350 acres and the <br />affected area is 340 acres. The present permit area is 1,082 <br />acres. The description should correspond to that required by <br />the State rules. - - <br />*Refuse Pile Inspections - The review of the quarterly <br />inspections of the refuse pile indicated that the reports are <br />not being certified by a registered professional engineer in <br />accordance with the Colorado rules at Section 4.09.1(11)(b). <br />The reports also did not indicate that the fill is being <br />constructed as designed. I also questioned the permittee's <br />representatives as to documentation that the reports were <br />submitted to the Division within two weeks after the <br />inspection. The immediate problem of no PE stamp led to the <br />issuance of NOV 94-005 by DMG. The DMG representatives <br />indicated that the Division could document that the reports <br />had been filed within two weeks. The LSCI was conducted on <br />2/17/94. Therefore, the violation existed at the time of the <br />LSCI. <br />Close-Out Meeting: <br />The close-out meeting was generally a reiteration of the <br />inspection. The asterix items were discussed in specific. <br />6 <br />