ENFORCE36345

• Permit No: C1984065
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Name: TEN DAY LETTER
• Violation No.: TD1990020250001TV3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

failing to plan, design, construct and maintain facilities to
meet the standards of 34-33-120 and Rules 4.04 and 4.05.1.
On October 23, 1990, a mandated OSM follow-up inspection was
conducted with Randy Corry, Carolyn Johnson, and Greg McKennis of
the Garfield Citizens Rlliance accompanying Henry Rustin <OSM)
and Mike Savage <MLRD). During that inspection the citizens of
the Garfield Citizens Rlliance brought to Mr. Savage's attention
a water pipeline. This pipeline starts outside the permit area,
at the Colorado River, and extends south for several hundred feet
to the junction of the mine entrance road and County Road 335.
It passes through a culvert under the county road and surfaces
into the permit area and extends for about 1,500 hundred feet
further south, ending at the water tower.
The group walked the pipeline down to the river, where Mr.
McKennis stated that a pump house had been installed by New
Castle Energy Corporation during the winter of 1985-86 and later
removed. Mr. McKennis owns the land on the northern boundary of
New Castle. Mr. Savage promised that the Division would look
into the pipeline situation and noted this in his inspection
report.
The Garfield Citizens Rlliance has reviewed the existing permit
package and can find no narrative or map describing the section
of the pipeline that lies within the permit area nor the section
that lies outside the permit area. Rpparently the entire
pipeline and the former pump house were constructed without
obtaining permit approval and without being included in the
reclamation plan and performance bond.
On November 26, Mr. McKennis and Ms. Johnson received a letter
from William Crick of MLRD giving the results of MLRD's
investigation. It states: "The pipeline extends beyond the
permit boundary, and is not addressed in either the existing
permit package or in the Permit Revision application" now pending
before the Board. The Division proposes to allow the operator to
either submit a technical revision it his application is approved
or to require the operator to remove the pipeline during
reclamation if his application is denied. We believe this
proposal overlooks the law's mandate to take enforcement action
on violations.
On November 26, Ms. Johnson talked with Mr. Crick and asked why
the Division did not take enforcement action. Mr. Crick stated
that he and Mr. Savage had read OSM's newly revised Directive
INE-35 and decided that this situation qualifies as a "permit
defect" and thus enforcement action was not appropriate or
required. Ms. Johnson has obtained a copy of INE-35 and notes
the following points: 1) the definition of permit defect does
not include the alleged violations described in this report; 2)
the directive does not lift the responsibility from the state to
take enforcement action on violations; and 3) the directive does
not exempt OSM from issuing a ten day letter. She also notes
that SMCRR and the federal regulations have no such animal as a
"ten day letter" and refer only to Ten Day Notices. Directives