Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 60203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />Fa x: 303 832-8106 <br />DATE: December 31, 1991 <br />TO: Dave Bucknam <br />FROM: Larry Routten <br />of ~o~ <br />~~_ R, <br />„e~~ g <br />'~ ~~~: Jar ~~. <br />~ /876 ~ <br />Roy Romer. <br />Governor <br />Frea R. Banta. <br />Drviswn Director <br />RE: Vacation of NOV C-91-014 at New Elk Mine (C-81-012) <br />Wyoming Fuel Company has submitted a request to vacate NOV C-91- <br />014. I recommend that you vacate the NOV for the following <br />reasons. <br />NOV C-91-014 was issued on August 12, 1991 during a federal follow- <br />up inspection for a TDN which the OSM had issued for failure to <br />design and construct sediment ponds in five sites where alternate <br />sediment control structures were in place. OSM indicated that a <br />federal violation would be issued unless enforcement action was <br />taken by the Division at that time. The NOV was subsequently <br />modified to remove three of the sites because they had already been <br />appropriately permitted as small area exemptions by the Division. <br />The required abatement was to design and construct sediment ponds <br />or demonstrate that alternate sediment control structures were <br />adequate. <br />The operator submitted a technical revision documenting that the <br />structures in place were adequate to contain storm events as <br />required by our regulations. We approved the revision and the <br />alternate sediment control measures, as allowed in Rule 4.05.2(3). <br />OSM apparently does not agree with our interpretation of this rule, <br />despite the AFO's concurrence in similar situations at dozens of <br />other mines in the state. Therefore, the AFO again informed us <br />that a federal violation would be issued for the five structures in <br />question. In an effort to avoid a federal enforcement action at a <br />mine where the Division has jurisdiction, a second NOV (C-91-028) <br />was issued on December 11, 1991. <br />NOV C-91-028 cites the <br />five sites identified in <br />has issued two NOV's <br />violation. i feel that <br />and I recommend that yo <br />same regulatory infractions and the same <br />the first NOV. As a result, the Division <br />to the operator for the same alleged <br />it is appropriate to vacate the first NOV <br />u do so. <br />cc: Steve Renner <br />Joe Dudash <br />