Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman $(., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone: 13031866-3567 <br />FAx: (}031 832-8106 <br />January 29, 1993 <br />Mr. Robert Hagen, Director <br />Albuquerque Field Office <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />505 Marquette N.W., Suite 1200 <br />Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 <br />RE: TDN X-92-020-370-003 (TV-2), Roadside/Cameo Mine (C-S1-041> <br />Dear Mr. Hagen: <br />OF'~O(O <br />ti~ <br />N`'~ c <br />. ~ q• <br />• uc.i <br />~ rBT6 <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />Michael B. LOng <br />Drvisian Director <br />The Division of Minerals and Geology has received and reviewed the Albuquerque <br />Field Office (AFO> January 15, 1993 determination regarding our December 24 <br />and 29, 1992 responses to the above-referenced Ten Day Notice (TDN>. In Sts <br />response, the AFO determined that the Colorado response was inappropriate. .As <br />provided for the 30 CFR 942.11(b)(1)(iii), the Colorado Division of Minerals <br />and Geology requests an informal review of the AFO determination by the Deputy <br />Director, Operations and Technical Services. The Basis for our appeal is as <br />follows. <br />Part one of the TDN alleges a violation of Colorado Rules 4.05.6 and 4.05.9 <br />for failure to properly design and certify impoundments. Two areas at the <br />Roadside/Cameo Mine are cited. These are a set of sewage lagoons at the Cameo <br />Mine and a pair of sumps at the North Decline Area. AFO determined that <br />Colorado's response in regard to the sewage lagoons was appropriate. Our <br />response in regard to the sumps at the North Decline was determined to be <br />inappropriate. Colorado disagrees with the determination because the AFO <br />rationale contains two fatal flaws. These are that the AFO mistakenly <br />determined that the structures are sediment ponds rather than temporary <br />impoundments, and the AFO has based its determination on the incorrect <br />assumption that there is a regulatory requirement to certify incised <br />impoundments which do not have embankments elevated above ground level. <br />