ENFORCE28034

• Permit No: C1981025
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 10/17/1994
• Doc Name: TEN DAY NOTICE 94-020-352-005 NORTH THOMPSON CREEK MINE C-81-025
• From: DMG
• To: OSM
• Violation No.: TD1994020352005TV3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• • III IIIIIIIIIIIII III
TE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmenl of Natural Resources
1317 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
October 17, 1994
Mr. Thomas E. Ehmett
Office of Surface Mining
Albuquerque Field Office
500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
RE: Ten Day Notice 94-020-352-005
North Thompson Creek Mine (C-81-025)
Dear Mr. Ehmett:
~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCE
Roy Romer
Governor
lames 5. Lochhead
Exec ul.re Dueaor
Michael 8. Lung
Drvrsion Dvector
The Division of Minerals and Geology received the above-referenced
Ten Day Notice (TDN) and accompanying inspection report on October
6, 1994. The TDN includes three alleged violations of Colorado's
regulations. The alleged violations involved impoundments P-1, P-
2, and P-7 at the reclaimed North Thompson Creek mine site. Two of
the three impoundments were large stilling basins next to the mine
access road which dissipate the energy of runoff from undisturbed
areas prior to runoff passing through culverts and leaving the mine
site. The third structure (P-2) served as a sedimentation pond at
one time.
Page 6 of the inspection report includes a misunderstanding of the
commitment which was made with regard to these structures at the
inspection close-out. At the inspection close-out it was obvious
that questions about the design, inspection and status (reclaimed
or not) remained which needed to be answered. I committed to issue
an enforcement action if these questions were not adequately
answered. Initially it appeared that the problems with the ponds
were related to permit defects and we took action to have the
permit defects addressed. However, on second look we agree that
correcting the permit defects would not entirely correct the on-
the- ground issue. Therefore we have addressed the permit defects
with the operator in addition to taking an enforcement action.
In addition the report narrative indicates that DMG attempted to
persuade OSM that appropriate action was not necessary at this time
because OSM had previously visited the site and had not raised the
issue on these ponds. That is not the case. What we pointed out
was that DMG and OSM had both participated in a Phase I bond
release at the site, at which time one would expect that one of us
would have become aware of this problem. However, neither one of