REV08206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;_ II I I 1111111111 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING ~~ ~_ RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT ~ ~ WASHINGTON, D.C. 2020 uur+ i J !JJ.~ RECEIVED Mr. Terence H. Thom Senior Vice President, Enron Corp P.O. Box 1188 Houston, Texas 77251 Deaz Mr. Thorn: JUN 21 1993 Division c/ Minerals 8 Geelo9Y This is a follow-up to your letter of May 17, 1993, addressed to Whitney H. Tipton, and to our meeting of May 20, 1993, regarding bond release for the Meeker area mines in Colorado. Mr. Tipton asked me to respond in his behalf. The Meeker Phase II bond release was one of the agenda topics I discussed with Mike Long and Steve Renner of the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG); and Bob Hagen, Director, Albuquerque Field Office (AFO); at a meeting on Mazch 23, 1993. As you know, bond release on Federal lands in Colorado requires concurrence from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). AFO indicated in its.bond release inspection report dated December 1, 1992, that the bond release application submitted by Enron Corp and the State evaluation of that application failed to demonstrate that the areas met the requirements for bond release. Ey le:.er of JattuW^~ 25, 1993, P.GO 5ralzed its nenconctnrence on the Phase II bond release. There were five specific problems: (1) whether sepazate azeas may be combined for evaluation purposes, (2) whether the documentation provided to AFO demonstrated that the azeas proposed for release at the Meeker Mine aze eligible for release, (3) whether the State appropriately verified field data submitted by the operator, (4) the fact that the State had not made a finding that contributions of suspended solids from the azeas are not in excess of premining revels, and (5) the fact that a change had not been made to the appioved post mining land use of grazing and wildlife that would allow the retention of a concrete pad and other facilities for future residentiaUrecreational purposes. Subsequent to that report and prior to the letter of :anuazy 25, 1993, AFO continued communication with DMG in an attempt to obtain all relevant information; i.e., proposed decision documents, and supporting data.