_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (134)

Home Browse Search

r PP�MENT OF lyd TAKES ym United States Department of the Interior AMMERG a S y O 7 D OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING MgRCH 33 `0a9 Reclamation and Enforcement Suite 1200 IN REPLY REFERTO- 505 Marquette Avenue N.W. Albuquerque,New Mexico 87102 October 27, 1993 CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #P-293-288-801 1p _ Mr. Steven G. Renner, Coal Program Supervisor Division of Minerals and Geology OCT 29 1993 Department of Natural Resources 01wS10 215 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: Ten Day Notice (TDN) 93-020-352-006, Violation 2 of 4 Dear Mr. Renner: The Albuquerque Field Office (AFO), on July 15, 1993, found the Division of Minerals and Geology's (DMG) response to the above-noted TDN to be appropriate. That finding was based on the DMG issuance of Notice of Violation (NOV) C-93-108 on July 8, 1993. The NOV required Mid-Continent Resources to submit a minor revision to the Coal Basin Permit to address the ownership and control information required by the approved Colorado program as it would relate to Pitkin Iron Company. The original abatement date was set at July 28, 1993. The NOV abatement date has subsequently been extended a number of times with the latest abatement date set at October 30, 1993. This new date is beyond 90 days from the date of the NOV issuance. Therefore, the requirements of the approved Colorado program, found at Sections 5.03.2(2)(b),(c) and (e), must be met. This has not been done in this case for the reasons discussed below: 1. Mid-Continent Resources submitted a revision to DMG on September 3, 1993. A review of the revision by DMG found that the information required by the NOV, relative to Pitkin Iron Company, was not included in the submittal responding to the NOV. However, Mid-Continent had enumerated their position as to why they would not be submitting information required by the NOV regarding Pitkin Iron Company. This established Mid-Continent's intent to not pursue abatement of the NOV. 2. To AFO's knowledge, there has never been a written request for an extension beyond 90 days submitted by the Permittee, nor has the Permittee met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing proof that he or she is entitled to an extension under the provisions of 5.03.2(2)(b) and (c).