Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />• <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />13t 3 Sherman St.. Room 215 <br />Denver. CO 80203 <br />303 B6fi~3567 <br />Fnx 303 632~Bt06 <br />April 17, 1990 <br />Mr. Robert Hagen, Director <br />Albuquerque Field Office <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />625 Silver Avenue, SW, Suite 310 <br />Albuquerque, NM 87102 <br />Re: Energy Mine No. 3 (Permit No. C-84-062), Ten Day Notice X-90-02-244-4 TV2 <br />Dear Mr. Hagen: <br />pF CLOG <br />4t,'.~-f <br />,~~~ . ia: <br />r-, <br />.~~ r. <br />.\ `~ <br />~ IB ]6 ~ <br />Roy Rome <br />Wverrp~ <br />Fretl R Banta <br />Division D~reaor <br />This letter is in response to Ten Day Notice X-90-02-244-4 TV2 received by <br />• tAined Land Reclamation Division April 9, 1990 following a joint inspection of <br />Energy Mine No. 3, Permit No. C-84-062 on March 20 and 21, 1990. <br />Issue No. 1 - This is an alleged violation of state regulation 4.09.1(11) <br />w i-F'chinvoTves "failure to inspect and certify an out of pit spoil disposal <br />area on a quarterly basis and during critical construction phases." The area <br />identified was the "out of pit spoil dump on the south mine." <br />The Division acknowledges that records of the inspections and the <br />certifications cited by the OSM inspector in regard to this structure cannot <br />be supplied. The Division, however, maintains these are not required since <br />the structure existed prior to approval of the permanent state program. As <br />result, the pile was specifically exempted by the Division from the <br />requirements of Rule 4.09. <br />Enclosed are copies from the Middle Creek Aline Permit Application Package <br />(Permit 81-036), the first operation proposed in the area under the permanent <br />program that would have included the structure. Also enclosed are copies of <br />memos from Jim Pendleton who conducted the geotechnical review of that <br />application, specifically addressing the applicability of Rule 4.09. CiearTy <br />the Division's position then, as now, was that the pile existed prior to <br />program approval, and, in the absence of further use or disturbance, was not <br />subject to Rule 4.09. There is no evidence that any further operational <br />disturbance of the pile occurred after its final oradinq in early 1980. <br />~~ <br />~^ F~~~ ~ <br />T.A ~ ~ ~O <br />