My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE22615
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE22615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:19 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:13:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981048
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/26/1991
Doc Name
MINUTES
Violation No.
CV0000000
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
s . ~ ®R~FT <br />Subject To Board Approval <br />Minutes, June 26 - 27, 1991 21 <br />Staff Presentation by Cathy Begej: <br />26. DISCUSSION ITEM <br />ROCKCASTLE COAL COMPANY File No. C-81-039 <br />c1o Mr. Dean Massey <br />Parcel, Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra <br />1801 California Street, Suite 3600 <br />Denver, CO 80202 <br />Secs. 20, 21, 28, 29, 31 and 32, TSN, R78W, Routt County, Grassy Gap <br />Mine; surface coal mine. Consider Staff recommendation on bond <br />forfeiture. Monthly status update (continued from the May 1991 Board <br />Meeting). <br />The Board was reminded that the Division had written 2 violations at <br />the mine for performance standard related issues concerning quarterly <br />pond inspections and performance of hydrologic monitoring. <br />During the last month, the operator requested vacation of those <br />violations. On June 14, 1991, the violations were upheld by the Acting <br />Director. An assessment conference was held on June 24, 1991, and the <br />conference officer upheld the violations. Therefore, the operator has <br />been informed of its responsibility for maintaining the site in <br />accordance with performance standards, as well as for any permit <br />conditions in the permit which were not revised by the Settlement <br />Agreement. <br />The Division has appealed to OSM, Washington, regarding a Ten Day <br />Notice received at the site for failure to have adequate bond, but has <br />not received a response at this time. <br />The Division inspected the site on June 14, 1991. It was determined <br />that reclamation completed during the summer of 1990 was producing a <br />good stand of vegetation cover from the mulch. Erosion has been <br />1 i mi ted . <br />A meeting will be held with the operator on June 28, 1991, to discuss <br />their bond release request. The operator has requested an increase in <br />bond release, due to the fact that backfilling and grading were <br />completed at the site in November of 1990. Requests for bond release <br />were made on November 30, 1990 and February 24, 1991, and have not been <br />acted on by the Division, as certain issues remain unresolvd. The <br />operator plans to complete the remaining engineering work this summer <br />and proceed to forfeit the bond. The Settlement Agreement calls for <br />forfeiture of a E50,000 bond. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.