My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE30025
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE30025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:36:54 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:28:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/7/1993
Doc Name
Comments regarding OSM DOCUMENT SETTLAGR 94 Internal Memo
From
DMG
To
DAN MATHEWS
Violation No.
CV0000000
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />1 • • <br />Memo - Dan Mathews - OSM - 2 - October 7, 1993 <br />Apex No. 2 Mine (continued) <br />7. The mine site, without question, qualifies for the highwall variance <br />described within the federal regulations, and it would by physically <br />impossible to reclaim to a more stringent standard. <br />8. The OSM has stated that they do not anticipate any significant problems <br />with the approval of our regulatory package (meeting September 27, 1993). <br />9. The OSM ordered MLRB to withdraw a reasonable and prudent agreement, even <br />though they had full knowledge and anticipation of approving a regulatory <br />package which would entirely validate the intent of the MLRB agreement. <br />10. The DMG and MLRB pursued a reasonable course of action, which led to <br />reclamation of a highly visible, potentially hazardous, pre- and post law <br />mining site. <br />11. The mine is mostly reclaimed, the reclamation is not in violation of any <br />regulation, and the operator has not requested bond release. There has <br />been no negative consequence as a result of the MLRB action. <br />12. Our actions merely served to expedite the reclamation of a mine site. <br />Grassy Gap <br />The draft document alleges numerous problems pertaining to this Settlement <br />Agreement, yet the document does not provide any specifics to substantiate the <br />general allegations. <br />The report alleges that "On-the-ground abatements of violations in NOV's <br />or FTA-COS were delayed, inadequately specified or improperly extended." <br />I cannot respond to specifics because none were provided. I can say that <br />our staff has diligently pursued numerous enforcement procedures at this <br />site, and if something was missed, it was not intentional nor was it of <br />any serious consequence. <br />2. The draft alleges that "Alternative enforcement provisions for injunctive <br />relief were not pursued." Injunctive relief was not pursued because it <br />was not necessary, nor was it a legal option given the circumstances <br />involved. <br />The operator was complying with a compliance schedule, as allowed by <br />Rule 3.04.1(2). This compliance schedule was deemed appropriate by <br />W. Hord Tipton, Office of Surface Mining on June 28, 1991 (copy of letter <br />attached). <br />3. The draft alleges that "Reclamation to less than Title V standards was <br />planned or accomplished in lieu of forfeiture of an inadequate bond". <br />This is not true. The site is currently and adequately reclaimed. This <br />is further substantiated within an OSM memorandum of October 7, 1991 to <br />Thomas Ehmett, of the AFO, from Charles Harrison, Engineer's Support <br />(copy attached). That memorandum states that the OSM found <br />"no deficiencies" following a special AOC study. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.