ENFORCE35485

• Permit No: C1981039
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 8/26/1991
• From: MLRD
• To: OSM
• Violation No.: CV0000000
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~~~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII STATE OF COLORADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
7313 Sherman SI.. Room 215 _
Denver. CO 80203 -
303 666-3567
Fax: [phone]
of ~o~
Nei ~QQQ
ri'C:
~ f8 ]6
Roy Romer.
Gavemar
Fred R. 6ama.
Dinsion Director
August 26, 1991
Mr. Robert Hagen, Director
Albuquerque Field Office
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
625 Silver Avenue, S.W., Suite 310
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Dear Mr. Hagen:
I would like to take this opportunity of express the extreme concern of the
State of Colorado regarding the Albuquerque Field Offices (AFO) handling of
three recent site visits. The AFO has scheduled three site visits for the
week of August 26, 1991 in Colorado. The sites are the Coal Basin, Grassy Gap
and Edna mines. Interestingly, each site is subject to independent settlement
agreements, with which Albuquerque has raised objections.
..
The Grassy, Gap visit is the subject of my August 21, 1991 correspondence to
you. In that letter, we requested that the OSM inspectors focus on the
specific issues discussed in the June, 1990 Compliance Agreement. We noted
that it would be more beneficial to all if AFO helped implement the Agreement
rather than attempting to resurrect issues settled within the context of the
Agreement.
The Edna and Coal Basin visits are being conducted under the auspices of a
Ten-Day Notice follow up. In the Edna case, our specific objection is that
there is no basis for a Ten-Day Notice follow up inspection. Directive INE-35
clearly states that OSM may visit minesites when field offices determine that
the State has supplied inadequate information to demonstrate that the
violation has been properly abated. We have not received notice that the
information submitted was inadequate. The Directive also requires that the
OSM notify the State of the visit and the information sought. Although we
were provided notice of the visit, we have never been told what information
was to be gathered. In fact, we were initially informed that this was to be a
random sample oversight inspection, rather than a Ten-Day Notice follow-up
Vlslt.
Regarding the Coal Basin visit, our concerns are similar to those outlined
regarding the Edna Mine. The planned visit is intended to be a follow-up to
the October, 1990 Ten-Day Notice. Again, we have not been informed of a
deficiency in the materials submitted to the AFO. We were informed of the
visit late on Friday, August 23, 1991, effectively allowing us 1 1/2 days of
notice. The inadequate notice has caused our staff to cancel an important
meeting with another State agency.