Laserfiche WebLink
.~~, <br />~v~ ~ ~ - ~! o~ g • Ill Illlllllllllllll °~~ ` <br />STATE OF C.yt~~i;~J __ <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />pf p0~ <br />Department of Natural Resources ,~~.; ~`_ 4~ <br />~e ;g(r <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 ~~$ <br />Denver, CO 80203 ` "~ <br />303 866-3567 •~~"6,' <br />FnX 303 632-8106 _ <br />Ray Rimer. <br />Gavemor <br />Frey R. Banta. <br />DATE: March 15, 1990 Drvrsron D~recror <br />T0: Mike Lonq ~~~~ <br />FROM: Susan Mowry C~."aytx'1!`- <br />RE: Cyprus Orchard Valley Reouest for Vacation <br />Cyprus Orchard Valley Coal Co. has reouested that NOV C-90-008 be vacated. <br />This NOV was issued on February 16, 1990 for "Failure to ..... implement the <br />repair of the West Portal cut failure in accordance with approved Minor <br />Revision 62". The violation was based on field observations and surveys as <br />compared to the revision repair plan in the office. <br />COVCC requests vacation based on their contention in their February 28, 1990 <br />letter that the repair work has not been completed. They also point out that <br />the MR 62 approval carried no completion deadline with it. Their point about <br />the lack of a completion deadline is true - there was none. Work at the West <br />Portal slide was driven by the reconstruction occurring at the West Ridge <br />Waste Pile. Therefore any deadline we could have proposed would have been <br />artificial and meaningless (note: completion deadline for the pile repair was <br />mid-November 1989). Concerning their first contention, by their own admission <br />the repair work was completed on November 18, 1989 (see attached copy of <br />February 7, 1990Tetter). In both the February 7, 1990 and February 28, 1990 <br />letters they admit that the repairs did not conform to the approved plan. <br />An evaluation of the repairs by Mr. Buckovansky who designed the plan, <br />indicated that the repairs varied from the plan, but "slightly'". The results <br />are steeper slopes and perhaps a less stable configuration. <br />I find that their argument that the project was not completed lacks merit and <br />is contradictory. I also find that their own admission of failure to <br />implement the approved plan indicates that the NOV should not be vacated. <br />Please see me or Jeff if you have any ouestions. <br />L C ~ .1.~.,~, Cow. ~/o c~.C,~~ <br />SJM/yjb <br />5194E <br />