Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />• • 1111111111111111111` s <br />STATE OF COLVxriw <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION oF.co~ <br /> <br />Department of Natural Resources ' <br />~~ 9 <br />~ <br /> <br />7373 Sherman SI., Room 275 <br />Denver, CO 80203 $ <br />y <br />~ ,~ <br />303 866-3567 •• <br />•" <br />Fax: 303 832-8706 re~e <br />Roy Romer, <br />May 7 , 1991 Governor <br />Fred R. Banta, <br />Division Drreclor <br />Mr. Robert Hagen, Director <br />Albuquerque Field Office <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />625 Silver Avenue, S.W., Suite 310 <br />Albuquerque, New Mexico 81102 <br />RE: Bourg Strip Mine (Permit C-8-021) Ten Day Letter X-91-02-244-2 TV1 <br />Appeal of Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) Finding <br />Dear Mr. Hagen: <br />On May 2, 1991, the Division received the AFO finding in regard to the <br />Division's response to the above referenced Ten Day Letter, The Division's <br />response was found inappropriate. The Division disagrees with that finding <br />and is, therefore, requesting an informal review by the Deputy Director, <br />Operations and Technical Services under 30 CFR 842,11(b)(1)(iii). <br />Enclosed please find a copy of the letter sent to the operator of the Bourg <br />Strip Mine requesting an amended insurance certificate as described in the <br />Division's response of April 11, 1991 to the Ten Day Letter and a copy of the <br />Certificate of Insurance Flatiron Companies provided. As can be seen on the <br />certificate the only operation described on the amended certificate is the <br />Bourg Mine. Since it is conceded by the Albuquerque Field Office in their <br />finding that Flatirons Companies dba Walden Coal Company is the operator of <br />the mine, it is clear that the operators insurance coverage of the Bourg Mine <br />exceeds the insurance required by State Rule 2.03.9(1) which was cited as the <br />alleged violation in TDL X-91-02-244-2 TV1. Clearly, there is no violation of <br />Rule 2.03.9(1). Therefore, the Division's response specifies and the amended <br />insurance certificate demonstrates, appropriate action was taken to address <br />the alleged violation. The AFO finding of the Division's response to be <br />inappropriate is, therefore, in error and should be reversed. <br />In the finding made by AFO, it is conceded that there is no knowledge of or <br />certainty that any other operations exist or are intended to be covered by the <br />policy. Information available to AFO, therefore, gives AFO no reason to <br />believe that a condition exists that would constitute a violation of the state <br />program, AFO has, however, assumed a worst case, i.e. that four or more <br />operations all requiring the same coverage as the Bourg Mine and all four <br />making simultaneous demands, for their attempt to call the insurance coverage <br />into question. There is no basis for the assumption, and there is no basis to <br />believe a violation exists. <br />