Laserfiche WebLink
~~ e~ \~_ <br />~:, - ~ ~ <br />III IIIIIIIII IIII III <br />,. <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver. CO 80203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />Fa x: 303 832-8106 <br />of rD~ <br />~~_ 4, <br />~~%%© 8 <br />• i, yi' <br />'re96 <br />Pay Ramer. <br />Governor <br />Fred R. Banta. <br />DATE: May 29, 1991 DIV~a~On Director <br />T0: Dave Bucknam, Acting Director <br />FROM: Cathy Begej C' Iti1~ <br />RE: Requests for Vacation, NOV's C-91-002 and C-91-003, <br />Grassy Gap Mine, File C-81-039 <br />Brent Anderson of Parcel. Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra, representing Rockcastle <br />Coal Company, has requested vacation of two violations written April 30, <br />1991. These violations were written following the Division's receipt and <br />unsuccessful appeal of Ten Day Notice X-91-02-116-4-TV 3 for failure to <br />perform sediment pond semi-annual monitoring (NOV C-91-002) and failure to <br />perform hydrologic monitoring (NOV C-91-0031, <br />The Grassy Gap permit expired April 23. 1990. The company failed to provide <br />adequate bond as required by NOV C-90-007 by May 16, 1990. Instead of writing <br />a Failure-to-Abate Cessation Order IFTACOI the Division and the Company <br />entered into a Settlement Agreement, signed June 27, 1990. It allows the <br />company to complete reclamation at the site and receive bond monies for <br />reclamation through the bond reduction process. In addition, the Settlement <br />Agreement specified the terms for completing some engineering work, resolution <br />of NOV's C-90-007 and C-89-034 (a violation on the surface water drainage <br />system), and ultimate forfeiture of a E50,000 bond. The Division believes the <br />Agreement is a modification of the bond release processes and the reclamation <br />plan. We do not believe that it supersedes other permit requirements nor <br />other applicable performance standards in the regulations. Paragraph I(2) of <br />the Agreement supports our interpretation. <br />Mr. Anderson argues in Section I of the May 20, 1991, vacation request that <br />the Settlement Agreement refers strictly to reclamation related compliance <br />obligations. Reclamation is never severed from operations under the general <br />regulatory scenario, and it was not the Division's intention to separate the <br />two with this Settlement Agreement. <br />In Section II of the May 20, 1991, Mr. Anderson makes the following <br />observations: <br />- Rockcastle basically complied with requirements associated with sediment <br />pond monitoring; <br />- NOV C-91-002 referenced inspections of Ponds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5/6; <br />- NPDES sampling was performed during 1990 and this constitutes substantial <br />compliance with the monitoring. <br />