ENFORCE25747 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE SUMMARY - NOV C-92-031 NOV C-92-031 was issued by Cathy Begej of the Division to Harrison Western (HW) on October 27, 1992 for "failure to mark perimeter of 'area of responsibility' accurately". The NOV cited Rule 4.02.3 and Rule 1.04(89). Rule 4.02.3 requires that "the perimeter of a permit area...shall be clearly marked before the beginning of surface coal mining operations". Rule 1.04(89) defines permit area in pertinent part as "...the area of land indicated on the approved map...which area of land shall be covered by the operator's bond...and shall be readily identifiable by appropriate markers on the site...". Ms. Begej provided background on the NOV at the beginning of the conference. In 1982, HW bonded a portion of the West Pit at the GEC Mine. HW's responsibilities under the performance bond were set out in a compliance agreement between HW and the Division which was approved by the Mined Land Reclamation Board April 22, 1992. The agreement included a map based on a Division conducted survey which depicted the boundaries of the HW area of responsibility, based on the legal description from the bond instrument. The area depicted is an irregular, roughly triangular 1.55 acre portion of the West Pit reclamation area. Condition No. 17 of the agreement requires HW to "maintain the bonded area to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act, the regulations promulgated thereunder, and the reclamation plan. The applicable regulations shall include, but not be limited to, Rules 4.01, 4.02.1, 4.02.2, 4.02.3...". Ms. Begej and Mr. Williams agreed that the agreement required HW to clearly mark the area of responsibility in the field, as required by Rule 4.02.3 and 1.04(89) for a permit area. Ms. Begej noted that Dr. W.D. Corley, the landowner, had been quite concerned regarding the final determination and demarcation of HW's area of responsibility prior to and after the completion of the agreement. On June 1 1, 1992, Ms. Begej inspected the site, accompanied by Mr. Rick Gomez, a contractor for HW. Mr. Gomez had delineated the HW responsibility area and Ms. Begej indicated that she was reasonably satisfied that the boundary as marked included the area depicted on the agreement map. No specific certification requirements had been specified in the agreement. On October 6, 1992, Dr. Corley requested a citizen's inspection based in part on a survey he had performed which showed what he termed "a very large deviation of the Harrison Western boundary markers from the area depicted in the compliance agreement...". Mapping submitted by Dr. Corley indicated certain discrepancies between the agreement map and the HW field delineation. At the north end of the area, a strip 80 feet long by 10 feet wide on the map had not been marked in the field. At the south end a strip approximately 200 feet long by 30 feet wide in exceedance of the agreement map had been marked in the field. Several other smaller discrepancies were evident, with the total discrepancy appearing to total approximately .3 acres, or approximately 20% of the 1.55 acre area. The total acreage encompassed by the two areas appears to be essentially equivalent, but they differ somewhat in shape. Mr. Williams conceded that there were discrepancies between the agreement map area and the field delineated area, although he thought the discrepancy was somewhat less