ENFORCE22647 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f Mr. Steven G. Renner 3 MLRD's response to TDN 91-2-116-4, Violations 2 and 3 of 3, identifies the violations as permit provisions. The response states, "However, given that there is no longer a permit, we are unable to enforce permit provisions." and "However, since the site did not have a permit, was under alternative enforcement by Board Order, and was in bond forfeiture proceedings, we elected not to take enforcement action, deeming it to be non-productive." Violation Nos. 2 and 3, Failure to examine sediment ponds, and Failure to monitor surface and ground water, respectively, are performance standards found under Colorado Rule 4. AFO understands that an expired permit ends the permittee's right to mine; however, it remains MLRD's responsibility in accordance with its approved regulatory program to enforce all applicable permit provisions and performance standards. Minor revision No. 7, dated December 4, 1989, establishes a sediment pond inspection schedule and reads, "* * * beginning 1990 calendar year." Minor revision No. 6, dated September 11, 1987, revises the requirements for the surface and ground water monitoring plan. There is no correspondence in the record approving discontinuance of the permittee's approved surface and ground water monitoring plan, or sediment pond inspections. As noted above, AFO does not recognize the Agreement as an alternative enforcement action. Furthermore, AFO does not recognize the Agreement as initiating a bond forfeiture proceeding as defined by Colorado's approved regulatory program. AFO finds MLRD's response to TDN 91-2-116-4, Violations 2 and 3 of 3 to be arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, inappropriate. If you disagree with these findings, you may request an informal review in accordance with 30 CFR 842.11(B)(1)(iii)(A). Sincerely, Hobert H. H n Director Albuquerqu F' ld Office Enclosures