GENERAL54406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GCA Issue Number 7: With regard to the inclusion of a mine records' check in complete inspections, AFO personnel reviewed MLRD's 1987, 1988 and 1989 inspection documents and found on three occasions that records were not checked during a complete inspection, or within an acceptable timeframe for the inspection, because the records were housed at a site separate from the minesite. In addition, OSM evaluates MLRD's inspection documents for completeness on an annual basis. During the most recent finalized annual evaluation, no issues or concerns were identified in this azea. Therefore, I do not fmd any consistent failure by MLRD to conduct complete inspections in accordance with its program. GCA Issue Number 8: MLRD has acknowledged that the Eastside Coal Company did load and sell coal from existing stockpiles while under temporary cessation. Since the loading of coal is included under the definition of "coal mining operations" pursuant to 2 CCR 407-2, 1.04(32), this should not have been allowed. MLRD also has stated that it is not the MLRD policy to approve coal loading for operations under temporary cessation. The Eastside Mine has since returned to active status and is once again subject to the inspection frequency required for an active operation. Conduct of coal mining operations at mines under temporary cessation has not been identified as a concern by OSM in its oversight role. This appears to have been an isolated occurrence, and although the situation has been rectified through the reassumption of active status for the Eastside Mine, OSM will continue to monitor the situation through its normal oversight of the Colorado program. Response to Request for Institution of a Federal Program for the NCEC Mine The specific situation with regard to the NCEC mine's permit revision appears to have resulted from a number of procedural breakdowns and misunderstandings concerning isolated areas of Colorado's program. While none of these defaults, if taken individually, supports a decision of failure to implement part or parts of the Colorado program, and thus does not justify action under 30 CFR 733.12(a)(2), taken together, their effect may have resulted in inhibiting public participation in accordance with the Colorado program's requirements concerning permit processing. To resolve this particular matter, there are, as you are aware, additional public participation provisions available under the State's program to any person who believes that his/her concerns have not been adequately addressed by the MLRD. Indeed, it is my understanding that Ms. Carolyn Johnson, on behalf of GCA, was made a parry to NCEC's administrative appeal to Colorado's Mined Land Reclamation Board concerning the MLRD determination that the Rifle loadout be treated separately from the permit revision proposed for approval on October 19, 1990. It is also my understanding that representatives of GCA and Ms. Johnson were present at_the Boazd's _ _ __ December 18, 1990, Special Hearing on this appeal and that considerable testimony was presented by GCA at the December 7, 1990, pre-hearing conference in support of its contention that the Board overturn MLRD's decision to approve the NCEC permit 4