ENFORCE26800 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~- . iii iiiiiiiuiiiiiii United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT ~~ ~ SUITE 310 625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. In Rrpl~ Rrfr~ fo: ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 May 10, 1991 ~~~~Bod~ MAY 1 3 1991 Mr. Steven G. Renner, Coal Program Supervisor Mined Land Mined Land Reclamation Division Reclamation Division Department of Natural Resources 215 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Re: Ten-Day Letter (TDL) No. 91-02-244-2, Bourg Strip Mine, Walden Coal Company Dear Mr. Renner: On May 7, 1991, the Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) received, via tele- fax, the Mined Land Reclamation Division's (MEAD) request for an informal review of AFO's April 29, 1991, written finding of an inappropriate response by MLRD to the above-referenced TDL. Included in MLRD's request for an informal review are copies of the letter sent by MLRD to Walden Coal Company requesting that the company amend its insurance certificate and the subsequent amended certificate submitted by Walden Coal. Neither of these documents was made available to AFO prior to the April 29, 1991, written finding rendered in this case. At the time AFO renders a written finding, in accordance with 30 CFR 842.11, regarding a State regulatory authority (RA) response to a Ten-Day Notice or TDL, AFO must evaluate that information or documentation made available by the RA for the record in each case. This was the situation in [he case of TDL 91-02-244-2, The April 11, 1991, MLRD response to the TDL stated that "the Division will require Flatiron Companies dba Walden Coal Company furnish to the Division a revised insurance certificate which includes a listing of the Bourg Strip Mine by May 15, 1991." The AFO written finding of April 29, 1991, based on the record before AFO, indicated that simply listing Bourg Strip as one of the operations covered by the certificate did not ensure adequate coverage if multiple claims were made on the policy. The letter instructing the company on how to revise the insurance certificate was not made available for AFO review nor was there an indication in MLRD's response that a written request for the revised certificate had been made.