Laserfiche WebLink
•}Y~ ~ Y <br />Tatum <br />May 6, 2004 - 2- <br />The initial newspaper public notice regarding the Technical Revision No. 55 was <br />published in The Chronicle News on January 14, 2004. This public notice reiterated the <br />comment and objection procedures. Following detailed review of the Technical Revision <br />No. 55 application, and having not received any objections, DMG issued a Proposed <br />Decision to approve Technical Revision No. 55 on February 27, 2004. The Notice of <br />Proposed Decision was published in The Chronicle News on March 8, 2004. The <br />referenced notice specified the process by which a heazing may be requested regarding <br />the revision, and the notice specified the ten-day timeframe within which a hearing may <br />be requested. In the absence of any comments or requests for hearing pursuant to the <br />Mazch 8, 2004 publication, the proposed decision to approve Technical Revision No. 55 <br />became final on March 19, 2004. <br />Your letter dated April 13, 2004 (received April 15, 2004) indicates concerns regazding <br />the shaft closure methods approved with Technical Revision No. 55 and requests <br />information regarding water depletion issues. The shaft closure plan approved with <br />Technical Revision No. 55 was reviewed with consideration of the closure requirements <br />of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act and the Regulations of the <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Boazd for Coal Mining. The site-specific conditions <br />as defined within the permit application (including the shaft completion information <br />provided with Technical Revision No. 55) were also considered. The project design <br />specifies that the shaft will be filled with high yield concrete that is formulated to flow <br />through the casing perforations to grout the pea gravel located in the annulus. The <br />completion diagram and revision materials also indicate that the annulus is sealed with <br />concrete from the bottom of the casing to an elevation of fifteen feet from the bottom of <br />the casing. We must also note that this April 13, 20041etter was also received after all <br />comment and objection timeframes expired. <br />The issue of water depletion is also addressed in your Citizen's Complaint letter of <br />January 9, 2004. This matter will be addressed in a sepazate letter responsive to any <br />pending issues discussed within your Citizen's Complaint of January 9, 2004. <br />Your May 5, 20041etter (received May 5, 2004) reiterates the concerns regazding the <br />closure plan. The letter also references a warranty from Halliburton. The letter also <br />references the formations and depths to be cemented and sealed. Our position regazding <br />the approved closure plan is discussed above. We cannot require a warranty from <br />Halliburton. The details regarding the cement and seal elevations are provided in the plan <br />details previously provided to you by DMG. <br />Sincerel <br />ad <br />Coa rogram Supervisor <br />