Laserfiche WebLink
<br />United States Department of the Interior <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />Suite 1200 <br />505 Marquette Avenue N.W. <br />Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 <br />February 18, 1993 <br />Mr. Steve Renner, Coal Program Supervisor <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />~N= <br />~~ <br />~ ^ <br />IN REPLYRF3FR TO <br />FEB 1 9 ]993 <br />MIlyFRALS ~- . <br />~, ..; <br />Re: Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) Action on Ten-Day Notice (TDN) <br />X92-020-370-003, Violation 2 of 2, Roadside/Cameo Mine <br />Dear Mr. Renner: <br />DMG received TDN 92-020-370-003 (TV 2), on December 16, 1992, and the <br />Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) received DMG's response for violation 1 of 2 on <br />December 28, and for violation 2 of 2 on January 6, 1993. AFO sent DMG an <br />inappropriate response finding for both of these violations which DMG received on <br />January 22, 1993. In response to AFO's inappropriate finding, DMG appealed <br />violation 1 of 2 of the TDN to the Deputy Director for an informal review and issued <br />a Notice of Violation (NOV), C-93-004, to address violation 2 of 2 of the TDN. <br />AFO received the NOV with a cover letter explaining DMG's position on <br />February 8, 1993. AFO has completed a review of DMG's NOV and has reached <br />the conclusion that the NOV still does not cause the violation to be corrected within <br />the requirements of the Colorado program. <br />AFO agrees with DMG that a NOV is mandatory in this case. However, the <br />abatement measures specified by DMG do not adequately require compliance with <br />the approved State program. Also, DMG's actions do not satisfactorily abate non- <br />compliant site conditions that were defined as part of the TDN violation, in spite of <br />the claim by DMG that the NOV's issued or revisions required as a result of this <br />inspection will address those conditions. Deferral of on-the-ground abatement of <br />these violations for another one and a half years is inappropriate. <br />AFO disagrees with DMG's position that the performance standards described in <br />the inspection report as not being in compliance do not require action by DMG <br />because only the contemporaneous reclamation standard was cited in the TDN. <br />AFO described these in the accompanying inspection report as specific standards <br />that were caused to be in non-compliance by Powderhorn Coal Company's (PCC) <br />failure to meet contemporaneous reclamation standards. The standards governing <br />