ENFORCE29794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.; iii iiniiiiniii iii _ 999 TAI(E - United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING s RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT ~~ i SUITE 310 625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. i„ Reply Rrfer To: ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 April 10, 1991 .APR 1 u ios, Mr. Steven G. Renner Coal Program Supervisor j~~ Mined Land Reclamation Division ?~i'@Cj ned'-G~'1C Department of Natural Resources afict1pn ~1v(S'GP, 215 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 50203 Re: Ten-Day Letter (TDL) No. 91-02-244-1 TV-1, Foidel Creek Mine, Twentymile Coal Company Dear Mr. Renner: On March 26 through 27, 1991, the Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) conducted a random sample inspection of the Foidel Creek Mine. The AFO inspector was accompanied by a Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) inspector. The inspection resulted in the issuance of the TDL referenced above for one violation of the Colorado regulations. The TDL was sent certified mail to MLRD on March 27, 1991, and was received in your office on March 28, 1991, thereby setting the response due date of April 8, 1991. The written response dated April 5, 1991, was received in AFO on April 8, 1991, via tele-fax. AFO will, therefore, consider this a timely response. Violation 1 of 1 of the TDL cites Colorado Coal Mining Regulation CCMR 4.05.2(3)(a) as the regulation believed to have been violated. The TDL states that the operator failed to demonstrate that sediment ponds or treatment facilities are not necessary to meet effluent violations for the rock dust tank, the fish creek dewatering site and borehole, and the sandstone power substation. MLRD's response indicates that the Division has requested that the operator submit a minor revision no later than April 30, 1991, providing demonstrations pursuant to the regulatory requirement noted in the TDL. On receipt of those demonstrations in the form of a minor revision, MLRD will process and approve the submittal within a 10-day timeframe. AFO finds the response to be good cause for MLRD not taking action. Under the guidelines regarding permit defects noted during oversight inspections in OSM Directive, INE-35, Section (5), MLRD has taken the appropriate steps to correct the violation. Therefore, OSM finds the response to Violation 1 of 1 of this TDL to be appropriate.