ENFORCE21114

• Permit No: C1983058
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 1/11/1994
• Doc Name: CONCURRENCE WITH REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF NOV ABATEMENT BEYOND 90 DAYS TWIN PINES LIMITED
• From: DMG
• To: STEVEN G RENNER
• Violation No.: CV1993104
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

`~ ,c
,;
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SI., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: [phone]
FA x:1303) 832-8106
DATE: January 11, 1994
T0: Steven G. Renner
FROM: Daniel I. Hernandez ~'~
RE: Concurrence with Request for Extension of NOV Abatement Beyond
90 Days, Twin Pines Limited Investment, The Twin Pines Mine No. 2,
Permit No. C-83-054, NOV No. C-93-104
of cow
R~= a
Ne'~~
+~~;~
Roy Romer
Governor
M ichael8 Long
Division Director
Per Rule 5.03.2(2)(e), I have reviewed this request from Twin Pines Limited
Investment for an NOV Abatement Deadline Extension Beyond 90 Days. I find the
operator has demonstrated good cause for receiving this extension per the
following reasons, as outlined in Rule 5.03.2(2):
Rule 5.03.2(2)(b) states that "Notices of Violation shall fix a
reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, except upon a showing by
the person who is issued the violation that it is not feasible to abate
the violation within 90 calendar days due to one or more of the
circumstances in 5.03.2(2)(c)."
I believe one of these circumstances exist. On July 1, 1993, this NOV
was issued for the operator's failure to treat surface water runoff from
the refuse pile at the mine site before its leaving the permit area. A
technical revision was subsequently submitted, and found complete on
August 9, 1993.
On August 31, 1993, during the adequacy review of the technical revision,
the mine ceased operations and shut down permanently. Subsequently,
changes were made to the technical revision in September, 1993, to
address final reclamation plans for the refuse pile. The Division's
adequacy review was mailed on October 24, 1993, the operator responded or
November 24, 1993, and the Division approved the technical revision on
December 15, 1993.
It can be said, therefore, that the operator's failure to abate this
violation within 90 days has not been caused by a lack or diligence or
intentional delay. Further, the permittee timely applied for and
diligently pursued necessary approval of the surface water system
designs, and as the mine's permanent shut down caused the permittee to
revise the technical revision, the permittee's failure to receive such
approval within 90 days was not within its control. As such, the
permittee's circumstances surrounding the necessity for requesting this
extension are similar to those described in Rule 5.03.2(2)(c)(i>.