Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Deoar7ment of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St.. Room 2t s <br />Denver. CO 80203 <br />303 8663567 <br />FA x. 303 8328706 <br />April 17, 1990 <br />Id r. Robert Hagen, Director <br />Albuquerque Field Office <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />625 Silver Avenue, SW, Suite 310 <br />Albuquerque, NM 87102 <br />III III III IIIIIIIIII <br />STATE OF ~ ~~.,:;s~.~~0 <br />P' CG(G <br />^~j . n' <br />r~, <br />`i <br />• /5 ]6 • <br />Fov Rome' <br />Governor <br />F reO R Barra <br />Division D~reao~ <br />Re: Energy Mine No. 3 (Permit No. C-84-062), Ten Day Notice X-90-02-244-4 TV2 <br />Dear Mr. Hagen: <br />This letter is in response to Ten Day Notice X-90-02-244-4 TV2 received by <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division April 9, 1990 following a joint inspection of <br />Energy Fiine No. 3, Permit No. C-84-062 on March 20 and 21, 1990. <br />Issue No. 1 - This is an alleged violation of state regulation 4.09.1(11) <br />w is invo ves "failure to inspect and certify an out of pit spoil disposal <br />area on a quarterly basis and during critical construction phases." The area <br />identified was the "out of pit spoil dump on the south mine." <br />The Division acknowledges that records of the inspections and the <br />certifications cited by the OSM inspector in regard to this structure cannot <br />be supplied. The Division, however, maintains these are not required since <br />the structure existed prior to approval of the permanent state program. As a <br />result, the pile was specifically exempted by the Division from the <br />requirements of Rule 4.09. <br />Enclosed are copies from the Middle Creek Mine Permit Application Package <br />(Permit 81-036), the first operation proposed in the area under the permanent <br />prooram that would have included the structure. Also enclosed are copies of <br />memos from Jim Pendleton who conducted the geotechnica7 re view of that <br />application, specifically addressing the applicability of Rule 4.09. Clearly <br />the Division's position then, as now, was that the Dile existed prior to <br />program approval, and, in the absence of further use or disturbance, was not <br />subject to Rule 4.09. There is no evidence that any further operational <br />disturbance of the pile occurred after its final grading in early 1980. <br />