2015-10-28_ENFORCEMENT - C1981014

• Permit No: C1981014
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 10/28/2015
• Doc Name: Appeal of Vacation of Notice of Violation
• From: Fairfield and Woods
• To: DRMS
• Violation No.: CV2013002
• Email Name: JRS
• Email Name: MPB
• Email Name: RDZ
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

L
� ]FAIRFIELD
1 g W00DS.c
October 28, 2015
Virginia Brannon, Division Director
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denveer, CO 80203
Re: Appeal of Vacation of Notice of Violation ("NOV") CV -2013-002
Dear Ms. Brannon:
Jack E. Reutzel
[phone]
[e-mail]
Via Email
Pursuant to Rule 5.03.5(1)(a) of the regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board
for Coal Mining ("Regulations") the undersigned, on behalf of South Central Land and Mining,
LLC and K2T, LLC (collectively the "Owners") hereby supplements the August 10, 2015 appeal
filed with the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("Division") by Linda
Saunders, a member of K2T, LLC (the `Original Appeal') contesting the July 30, 2015
Division's determination to vacate NOV CV -2013-002 ("Division Determination"), attached
hereto as Exhibit A. The Original Appeal and this Supplemental Appeal may be collectively
referred to as the "Appeal".
The Division relied on three factors in the Division Determination: cost, risk and value (Division
Determination, p.3). Owners contend that the reasons cited by the Division are improper criteria
for vacating a NOV. Regulation 5.03.2(5)(b), provides that an authorized representative may
modify, vacate, or terminate a cessation order for good cause, subject to the limitation of
5.03.7(2). Good cause is generally defined as a legally adequate or substantial reason to take a
certain action. Against this definition the Owners contend the following:
Cost. The fact that removing the obstruction or establishing a replacement monitoring well may
be expensive to the operator isn't evidence of "good cause" to relieve an operator from
complying with a NOV. Clearly the Division initially determined the MW -NW had value
because the NOV was issued due to the inoperable condition of the MW -NW. The purpose of
monitoring wells is to provide information to the Division regarding the rate that the abandoned
workings were re -filling and to sample and test the water for water quality purposes. The
information to be extracted from a functioning MW -NW is also of high importance to the
Owners for long term planning for the surface estate. To simply excuse the operator from
complying with TR -35 to provide water monitoring for the site because it might be expensive is
not evidence of good cause supporting the vacation of the NOV. Without knowing the
1801 California Street ■ Suite 2600 ■ Denver, Colorado 80202
t [phone] ■ f [phone] ■ www.fwlaw.com