ENFORCE36641 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^III IIIIIIIIIIIII III 999 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING Reclunation and Enfarcensn[ Suim 1200 505 Marqueae Avenue N.W. Albuquerque, New Mrxim 87102 December 12, 1994 Certified Return Receipt # P 079 749 438 Ms. Susan J. McCannon, Coal Program Supervisor Department of Natural Resources Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 ~F~F~~Fn UEC ~ q 1994 l~IVISIOfi UI roIIfIC'fdls 4 VeUIUy~ Re: Division of Minerals and Geology's (DMG) Response to Ten-Day Notice X94-020-352-006 Dear Ms. McCannon: The Albuquerque Field Office received your response to Ten-Day Notice (TDN) X94-020-352-006 TV1 via fax machine on December 1, 1994. Your response was received within the 10-day period and is considered timely. The TDN was issued as a result of an oversight inspection of the Roadside Portals Mine conducted November 15-17, 1994. A DMG inspector was present throughout the inspection. The TDN was issued for "Failure to provide for either a combination of principal and emergency spillways or a single open channel spillway in ponds 1, 2, 7 and 8." In your response, you contend the problem identified by the TDN is a permit defect and will be resolved as allowed in paragraph 5 of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) Directive INE-35. With your response, you included a copy of a letter to Powderhorn Coal Company requiring Powderhorn to submit a technical revision to change the pond designs and implement any on-the- ground work required by the revision within 30 days of final approval of the revision. In your response, you also state that the design calculations in the mine plan were used to check the storage capacity of ponds 2 and 7. The results of that review indicated that ponds 2 and 7 have a storage capacity to totally contain the runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event. Based on your review, it appears that ponds 2 and 7 do meet the criteria for a permit defect since no violation actually exists on the ground. Therefore, I find your response pertaining to ponds 2 and 7 to be appropriate contingent upon OSM receiving the demonstrations, Powderhorn is required to submit, for our review.