ENFORCE21272 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~; 1 Memo - Larry Routten - 2 - December 10, 1993 2. The Draft "Attachment B" states the reclamation standards in the settlement agreement "do not require AOC". This is false and misleading. Nowhere in the agreement is there an improper or illegal waiver of AOC requirements. The agreement contains the following statements: Section II(1)(c> "Rockcastle may replace overburden material in Pit 4 pursuant to the provisions of 2 CCR 407-2, Rule 4.14.4 upon submission of information which demonstrates that insufficient overburden is available on site to reclaim Pit 4 to approximate original contour. (Note: This is a legal waiver, allowed under specific conditions, as discussed at Rule 4.14.4. Ultimately the waiver was not needed or used.) Section II(1)(d> "Rockcastle shall not be required to import fill material to the permit area to achieve approximate original contour or backfilling and grading requirements for Pits 4, 5 and 6 under this agreement. (Note: The statement addresses the importation of fill, other methods would have been required, if necessary to achieve AOC. The statement does not relieve the mine operator from the requirement to achieve AOC.) There are no other references to AOC in the agreement. AOC was required, and has been achieved at this site. 3. Attachment B states that monies were released by "bond reduction", and in a manner "administratively indistinguishable from its processing of a phase release of bond". First, the reviewer should be aware that the Colorado regulations require that both "bond release" and "bond reduction" processes must occur using the same procedures. The procedures are "administratively indistinguishable" as required by regulation. Second, our files indicate that there has been no misuse of terminology during 1992 or 1993. I cannot find any recent notification using the term "bond reduction". All publications for Rockcastle during 1992 and 1993 use the term "bond release". If some document exists, which uses the term "bond reduction", then it is used inadvertently, ~d without negative or relevant consequence. All of our notifications and publications clearly show that the intended process is bond release for reclamation work performed. The report provided by the AFO contains numerous false and misleading statements. I assume that the AFO staff spent numerous hours and taxpayer dollars to generate this biased and incorrect report. As a result, Colorado staff wasted additional time and taxpayer monies responding to this fiasco. We should consider direct communication with the appropriate Washington authorities to eliminate any activities such as this. Oversight should focus upon .f acts, and facts of consequence, rather than triviality, falsehoods and inuendo. DAB/ern cc: Steve Renner 9448E