ENFORCE33121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iii iiiiiiiiiiiiim 999 Wyoming Fuel Co. 10250 Highxay 12 Weston, CO 81091 719-868-2761 New Elk Mine C-81-012 TDN fo~c~.~~Q~~_ 12 /~r9~ Mitchell 5. Rollings, 370, OSM Ron Thompson, Mining Engineer, Wyoming Fuel This xas a.follow-up inspection to TDL 91-02-370-003, issued 3/19/91. MLRD appealed this TDL to OSM HQ and the TDL was upheld. MLRD then issued NOv C-91-014, on 8/7/91. A modification of this NOV xas issued on 8/15/91, deleting three of the locations cited in the TDL. The reason given for deleting these three locations xas the same as that used in the appeal of the TDL. Since the appeal upheld the TDL, and MLRD deleted three of the locations from their NOV, AFO had reason to believe that a violation of the state program continued to exist and conducted this follow-up inspection. The three locations, containment areas 1 and 2, and the containment area north of the highxay and rest of the refuse belt, are all designed to contain the SO yr./24 hr. event for their respective watersheds. The designs consist of dimensions to show that the event rill be contained. These areas have not been physically altered nor have the approved designs been changed since the original oversight inspection. I arrived at the site about 1:15pm. As I was reviewing the approved permit, Mr. Thompson showed me a telefax he had received at 12:17pm. The fax was an NOV from MLRD. The NOV was for not properly designing and constructing sedimentation ponds. This applied to all five of the areas cited in the original TDL; not just to the three areas deleted from the initial MLRD NOV. The NOV's remedial measures weze to have designs approved by the end of January and to construct the ponds to those designs by some time in March. Section 4.05.6 was referenced, but I told the operator that the designs and construction would have to be in compliance with not only the sedimentation pond regulations, tut also the impoundment regulations. The MLRD NOV and remedial actions address the problem. The NOV had a certified mail number on it so I ignored the fact that a fax is not considered valid service. I did not issue a Federal enforcement action since MLRD took action. The operator questioned whether or not he had to send copies of the desigrs to AFO and I told him no. I did tell him that AFO would follow this S1CUdtlOn t0 ].L9 CORC1l1S lOn.