Laserfiche WebLink
SENT BY~Xerox Telecopier 7021 ~ 9- 6-84 ~ 3~24PM <br />Honorable Roy Rnmer <br />September S, 1994 <br />Page 4 <br />3036323A04y 303 632 6106~ts 5 <br />D~3~~~ <br />Mr. Austin also testified that, is preparing for the April, 1993 inspection, he <br />reviewed Ken's cogent State permit and was aware that, in 1990, the DMG had <br />appravcd a revised backfilliag end grading plan in the event mining shopped with Fit 1. <br />He also was aware that mining was completed in Pit 1 in 7anuary, 1993, and that Kea did <br />not plan to continue mining beyond that area. Mr. Austin said he concluded that the <br />revised plan far Pit 1 was a "pemrit defect." because, in his view, it did not comply with <br />the AOC standard in tha state regulations. Where dte operghor has not yet taken. action on <br />the gro~d to cagy out a "pemut defect," he testified it is OSM's policy to identify the <br />defect in the inspecting report rather than take enforcement action. But, Mr: Austin's <br />inspection report does not state that the 1990 permit revision violated the AOC standard. <br />To the wnirary, he merely asked for an analysis of the bond required for "the ~d <br />bare and. grading plan." Ii; indeed. he believed the revised plea failed to meet the <br />AOC standard, Mr. Austin's inspection report did not notify Kea or the DMG of his <br />opinion. <br />The Summary also states that OSM's AFO and WSC "had numerous contacts with <br />DMG regarding these concerns throughout the process" Robert Inman of the WSC vVas <br />assigned. to do the studies requested is Mr. Austin's inspection repork He did meet aiith <br />Randy Price gad reviewed the Kea permit files in the DMG's office on May 18, 1993: <br />He also with Kea'a consultant daring a mine visit on May 27, 1993. He then prepared a <br />study dated July 19, 1993, which found Kew's $5.1 million band adequate, and a <br />volumetric study dated Jane 22, 1993. Mr. Inman sent these stadies to the AFO, not tb <br />aw.t+x~ <br />