Laserfiche WebLink
~... <br /> <br />•~ V ~ <br />r <br />1/ <br /> <br /> `• . <br /> ,r <br /> <br />United States Deparunent of the Interior <br />OFF1C~ OF SURFA~ -QNING <br />REQAMA-17O1~ AND ENFORCF~nT <br />SUfT'E ! 10 <br />6S SILVER AVENUE. S.M'. <br />ALHUQUERQUE. KEM' MEXSC.O 87102 <br />ltay I0, 1990 <br />CERTIFIED [SAIL--REIVRN RECEIPT REQUESTED <br />P 965 798 948 <br />Mr. Michael B. Long, Goal Program Supervisor <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />215 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Ten-Day Notice 90-02-244-4 <br />Dear Mr. Long: <br />III 1111111111111111 <br />999 <br />~~ <br />..~ <br />~ ~ <br />In Wdt adee Tu: <br />.. <br />"fiY ' ? :u <br />_ iluly~.i ` <br />In accordance with 30 CFR 842.11, following is a written finding <br />regarding the Mined land Reclamation Division's (YJ.RD) response to the <br />above Ten-Day Notice (TDh'): <br />Or: March 20 .:nd 21, 1990, the Albuquerque Field uffice (AFO) conducted a <br />random sample ovezsight inspection of Colorado Yampa Goal Gompam_•'s <br />Energy No. 3 mine; the OSM inspector vas accompanied by an lfIRD <br />representative. Tne inspection resulted in the issuance of TDK 96-02- <br />244-4 dated March 26, 1990. The TDN vas sent by ceztified mail and !'J.RD <br />received it on April 9, 1990. tII RD's initial response to the TDt: vas <br />received by telephone from Jim Stevens to Gary Frits on April lE, 1990. <br />Your office's written response regarding the TDN vas received on April <br />20, 1990. AFO will consider this a timely response to TDN 9G-02-244-4. <br />Sne TDN cites Colorado regulation CCR 4.07-2 Section 4.09.1(11) as the <br />regulation believed to have been violated for violation 1 of 2. Tne TDI~ <br />states that the operator failed to inspect and certif~- an out-of-pit <br />spoil disposal area on a auarterl}' basis and during critical <br />constzuction phases. <br />Your office has zesponded by indicating that the out-of-pit spoi'_ dump <br />vas con_stzucted prior to approval of the permanent State progras. As a <br />result, it was specifically exempted by !'run from the reauizements of <br />Rule 4.09. As indicated, MI.RD recognizes twat there is need to clear up <br />this aefieiency; eonsequeatly, the zeeuest vas made prior to the kF0 <br />oversight inspection that the company aaaress the construction in the <br />