INSPEC46512 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • S TATF, OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Deparunent of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman 51.. Room 215 Dem-er, Colorado 80203 D I v 1 5 1 o N o f Phone: 13031 866-3567 M I N E [iA L S FA%: (301) Dl?8106 & GEOLOGY REC LA MAiION MINING•SAf ETY April 6, 2001 B~II Owens 61 r. Brent S. Broekemeier eovemor Superior S&G c/o Rio Grande Co. Oreg E. w,lcner 201 $ama Fe Dr. Eaecwive D~reaor Denver, CO 30223 Michael B. Long Division Din+clor RE: Superior S&G Pit (Permit M-! 979-189) Resolution of compliance problems identified during ]/26/01 inspection Dear Sir: In the report of the Division's inspection of the Superior S&G Piton 1/26(01, two compliance problems were iden[if~ed together with suggested corrective actions and dates. The status of the corrective actions is as follows: COMPLIANCE PROBLEM 1(Failure to post a clearly visible ID sign for the operation): On 3/19/01, the Division received pictures of a sign bearing the permit number for the operation posted on the access road gate. The Division considers Compliance Problem I abated. COMPLIANCE PROBLEM 2 (Lack of consistency between permit holder's current mining and reclamation plans and those approved in the permit.): On 2/20(01, the Division met with you and your environmental consultant, Michael Han, in regard to modification of the approved mining and reclamation plans. I[ was understood by the Division then and confirmed in your note received 3/19/01 that Mr. Hart would sUDDIY the revised mining and reclamation plans. At the time of our meeting and at the time of your note, i[ was also [he Division's understanding that the revised mining and reclamation plans were to be submitted by 3/30/01, the corrective action date originally set in the report of the Division's (/26/01 inspection. On April 2, 2001, the Division received a fax transmission from Mr. Hart requesting a 60 day extension of [he cortective action date, i.e. to May 31, 2001. In that letter, Mr. Hart indicated that his request was made on behalf of Rio Grand Co. The Division had no previous indication from Rio Grande Co. [hat Mr. Hart was in a position to represent the Company in asking for an extension of the corrective action date. Although it was understood that he, as consultant to the Company, would supply the revised mining and reclamation plans, meeting the speci&ed corrective action dale remained a matter between the Company and the Division, not Mr. Hart and the Division. Thal is why I called you on 4/3/01 and 4/4/01 asking For written (or fax) confirmation from you of Mr. Har's request for an extension or an indication that he does now represent the Company in abating this compliance problem by the required time. I still have not received that evidence; although you did say, in one of the voice mail messages that you left in response to my calls, that Mr. Hart had sent you a copy of his request and that such a request was acceptable to you. Since a failure on the part of a permit holder to properly abate a compliance problem by the required dale can result in the problem fuming into a possible violation, the Division, without hard copy evidence that Mr. Hart speaks for the Company in the matter of satisfying this compliance problem the required date, will proceed in the following manner. The Division, in the absence o[ any written evidence from the Co_mpany to the contrary, accepts Mr. Hart's statement that he now speaks in behalf of the Company in the matter of meeting the cortective action date for Compliance Problem 2 and approves his request to extend the corrective action date for Compliance Problem 2 from 3/30/01 to 5/3l/OI. If you have any questions on the above, please contact me. Sincerely, .1 aw,o, G S-(et,~t<,a James C. Stevens Sr. Specialist