Laserfiche WebLink
MOUNTAIN COAL III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br /> rr�y %'COMPANY L.L.C. West Elk Mine <br /> A Subsidiary of Arch Western Resources,LLC RECEIVED PO Box 591 <br /> 5174 Highway 133 <br /> Somerset CO 81434 <br /> JUL 191999 Far(970)929-55595 <br /> July 13, 1999 Oiuision of Minerals&Geology <br /> Mr. Larry Routten <br /> Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br /> 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br /> Denver, CO 80203 <br /> RE: Notice of Violation CV-99-005; West Elk Mine; Permit No. C-80-007 <br /> Dear Larry: <br /> Mountain Coal Company, L.L.C. (MCC)has sent, under separate cover, a check in the amount of <br /> $750.00 for the civil penalty assessed for the above referenced notice of violation. For the <br /> record, MCC continues to disagree with the issuance of the violation, as the basis of the violation <br /> is unequivocally incorrect. However, MCC would consume more costly resources further <br /> supporting our position than the assessment amount of$750.00. MCC believes that there are <br /> three points raised in the proposed civil penalty assessment that should be corrected. Please <br /> arrange for these corrections. <br /> •To restate a fact discussed in MCC's letter dated June 8, 1999. the installation of Soil Guard at <br /> Shaft#3 was not a required component of the Small Area Demonstration (SAE) completed in <br /> MR#219, nor does the SEDCAD demonstration refer to the use of a soil binder. The sediment <br /> control plan consisted of strawbales located at the end of the benches in the amphitheater cut <br /> with the majority being placed on the benches cut into the north-facing soil slope. In addition, a <br /> topsoil pile, surrounded by a silt fence, was proposed for installation below the shaft pad. These <br /> sediment control structures could not be installed, as MCC did not locate the topsoil pile at Shaft <br /> #3, or constructed the north-facing cut-slope. Instead, as the site was constructed MCC <br /> evaluated areas where sediment would likely be generated and concentrated the sediment control <br /> measures in those locations, as allowed by our permit. The Division's approval letter for <br /> MR4219 stated,"MCC retains some flexibility in choosing particular sediment control <br /> measures". <br /> •As the use of a soil binder was not included in the SAE demonstration at Shaft #3, there was no <br /> need in the Technical Revision No.86 application to request the removal of this commitment, as <br /> the assessment officer stated in the civil penalty assessment. <br /> •There are two maps that reflect the drainage control at the Shaft 43 site: Map 54B and Map 3E. <br /> Map 54B shows the location of all ditches and culverts, which was revised for TR#86, and at the <br /> time of the inspection, the Division agreed that the map accurately reflected what was on the <br /> ground. Map 3E shows the contributing drainage basins to the Shaft#3 area for calculation of <br /> the flow contribution to the ditches and culverts shown on Map 54B. A revised map was also <br />