Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made <br />during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection <br />and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />Introduction <br />A Phase I bond release inspection covering portions of the Powderhorn Coal Company Roadside North and <br />South Portals Mine permit area was conducted as scheduled on August 14 and August 15, 2001. Weather <br />was cloudy and cool on August l4, clear and warm on August I5. A follow-up site visit was made on <br />August 24, 2001, to verify completion of requested maintenance work in a couple locations. The <br />inspection was conducted by ban Mathews of DMG, and began at 9:00 a.m., on August 14. Participants <br />present at the beginning of the inspection were private landowner RudyFontanari, BLM representatives <br />Bruce Fowler and Dave Trappett of the Grand Junction Resource Area Office, and OSM representative <br />Randall Pav. Tonya Hammond representing PCC was present throughout the inspection, and JimStover <br />representing PCC was present on August 15. The BLM representatives participated on August 14, but <br />elected not to attend on the subsequent inspection dates. Mr. Pair was present on August 14 and August 15. <br />All of the inspection participants requested copies of the bond release inspection report and the proposed <br />decision. <br />Mr. Fontanari owns surface property within [he permit area, although none of the facility areas for which <br />Phase I bond release was requested are on Mr. Fontanari's property. BLM owns both surface and mineral <br />estate within the permit area, and certain lands subject to the Phase I bond release request (the 2-West <br />Portals and South Lease exploration sites and roads) are on BLM surface. Mr. Pair indicated that his role <br />was as an advocate for the federal land management agency (BLM) pursuant to the cooperative agreement, <br />and that he was not conducting program oversight. <br />During discussion preliminary to initiation of [he inspection, Mr.Fontanari indicated that he wanted to be <br />sure that approval of the bond release would not shift responsibility forminewater monitoring and <br />treatment to private landowners in the permit area. 1 explained thatPowderhom Coal Company would <br />continue to be responsible under the DMG permit and Water Quality Control Division CDPS discharge <br />permits for water quality monitoring and any necessary treatment, and that the requirements would not be <br />affected by approval of a Phase l bond release. Mr. Fontanari also mentioned that he thought there might <br />be subsidence cracks in certain locations on his land, and 1 said that DMG would look at any such sites if <br />he would provide location information or if he wanted to accompany us on an inspection. He said he <br />would consider the matter and might contact me in the future. Mr.Fontanari departed at that time and did <br />not participate further in the bond release inspection. <br />The applicant had requested phase I bond release for 47.1 acres, including South Lease Exploration sites, <br />the North Decline reclaimed area, reclaimed lower benches of CRDA-I and CRDA-2 refuse areas, the <br />reclaimed South Fan site, the reclaimed 2-West Portals Site, and the reclaimed Cameo Borrow Area I site <br />(CBA-1). Also, the applicant had requested Phase 1 release consideration for facilities demolition <br />associated with the overland conveyor, and portal sealing at each ofthe mine openings. In addition, the <br />operator had requested subsequent to submittal of the bond release application, that a recently completed <br />concrete wing-wall structure constructed at the upper dip-section crossing of Coal Creek channel be <br />observed during the bond release inspection. If it was deemed acceptable, operator requested that <br />completion of [he installation be acknowledged in the bond release decision. <br />The inspection was initiated at the upper dip-section location. The wing-wall installation appeared to be in <br />compliance with the approved design, and the BLM representatives indicated that they concurred with this <br />