Laserfiche WebLink
~. <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />sss TAIIF~~ ~ <br />United States Department of the Interior ~~ <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING <br />RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT ~ i <br />SUITE 310 <br />625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. in Reph 0.r(e~ To: <br />ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 <br />May 10, 1991 <br />~~~.i~I~i~W ~~ <br />.YIAY i 3 ]991 <br />Mr. Steven G. Renner, Coal Program Supervisor Mined ~dnc <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division ~~2''~8n12110n Uib'~~IOf' <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />215 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Ten-Day Notice (TDN) No. 91-02-244-6, Foidel Creek Mine, Twentymile <br />Coal Company <br />Dear Mr. Renner: <br />The following is the final written finding, in accordance with <br />30 CFR 842.11, regarding the Mined Land Reclamation Division's (MEAD) <br />response to the above-referenced TDN. <br />On May 3, 1991, the Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) received via tele- <br />fax MLRD's second response to the TDN. This submittal was within the <br />extended response time as approved by AFO and will, therefore, be <br />considered a timely response. <br />On April 23, 1991, MLRD conducted a Follow-up inspection of the Foidel <br />Creek Mine to review the alleged violation involving the Fishcreek <br />Borehole access road. MLRD found the road to be "dry, and well graded, <br />with well maintained perimeter ditches, cross drains, culverts, and <br />excellent surfacing." Based on these observations, MLRD declined to <br />take enforcement action. <br />30 CFR 842.11 sets forth conditions that constitute "good cause" for <br />failing to take appropriate action. One of the conditions is that the <br />possible violation does not exist. Therefore, AFO finds MLRD's <br />response, based on the observations noted in the April 23, 1991, follow- <br />up inspection, to constitute good cause for not taking an enforcement <br />action because the alleged violation no longer existed. AFO may revisit <br />the minesite to confirm the absence of the alleged violation as <br />specified in Section 4.c.6 of OSM Directive INE-35. <br />In the second response to the TDN, MLRD states that AFO declined to make <br />evidence of the alleged violation available to MLRD. This was not the <br />case. As outlined in my letter of April 23, 1991, all available <br />evidence of the alleged violation was already in the possession of MLRD. <br />Albuquerque Field Office <br />