Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />After viewing the areas noted above a close out meeting was <br />held with the operator. At that meeting the State and the <br />operator were informed that, based on the findings of this <br />inspection, the Pit ~1 area had not been returned to AOC. In <br />addition, there was no applicable provision of the Colorado <br />approved program or parallel Federal regulations that would <br />allow for the approval of this type of variance to AOC. The <br />operator commented that it was "too late" to discuss returning <br />the area to AOC. The State commented that the operator had <br />returned the area as had been approved in the revised permit. <br />The operator had completed reclamation activities in <br />accordance with the revised MRP, removed the majority of his <br />reclamation equipment and submitted a Phase I bond release <br />application. The State had approved the variances to AOC by <br />means of the permit revision process and had voiced the <br />opinion during the inspection that the operator was in <br />compliance with the wishes of the State regarding the manner <br />in which the area had been reclaimed. <br />Based on the above, I informed the group that I was prepared <br />to issue a Federal Notice of Violation for failure to return <br />the Federal lands portion of the disturbed area in Pit ~1 to <br />its AOC under the authority of Sec. 523 of SMCRA and 30 CFR <br />906.30, the Colorado Co-operative agreement. However, I was <br />willing to give the State until close of business on May 20, <br />1994, to decide one of the following: <br />1. Agree that the permit revisions and subsequent reclamation <br />were not allowed under the approved Colorado program and work <br />with the Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) to correct the permit <br />and bring the site into full compliance, or <br />2. Confirm their apparent stance that the revisions to the <br />permit and reclamation work accomplished in accordance with <br />those revisions were acceptable to the State and would not be <br />changed. <br />The State faxed their reply to the AFO on May 20, 1994, with <br />the hard copy received on May 23, 1994. The State took the <br />position that they had acted appropriately and would not be <br />taking any additional action at that time. <br />Therefore, on May 24, 1994, I contacted Dave Berry, DMG <br />supervisor, and informed him that I would be at the Marr Strip <br />mine office on the morning of May 25, 1994, to close out the <br />bond release inspection and in all probability, based on the <br />observations made that date, issue a Federal NOV. He declined <br />my invitation to accompany me on the inspection. <br />May 25, 1994 <br />Inspector Russ Porter and I met the operator and his <br />