Laserfiche WebLink
- <br />_:.. <br />ARCO :: <br />Legal <br />555 Seventeenth Street <br />Denver, GO 80202 <br />Telephone 303 293 4230 <br />Facsimile 303 293 4098 <br />_ <br />~~ _~ <br />~~II~ <br />~II ~I~~I~~I~ <br />999 <br />Scot W. Anderson <br />Senior Attorney <br />April 27, 1993 <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />State of Colorado <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />RFCEIVEC <br />APR 2 8 1993 <br />Divtsior ~! h9tgel.rr~ ~ ~aohl9Y <br />CERTIFIED MAIL <br />Return Receipt Requested <br />Re: Request for Formal Review of Notice of Violation C-93-006 <br />Dear Sir or Madam: <br />On February 19, 1993, the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (Division) issued <br />Notice of Violation (NOV) No. C-93-006 to Mountain Coal Company's West Elk Mine, <br />located near Somerset, Colorado. This NOV was the first issued to Mountain Coal <br />Company's West Elk Mine in nearly seven years. While acknowledging that Mountain <br />Coal Company performed subsidence monitoring surveys throughout the relevant <br />period, the Division alleges in the NOV that Mountain Coal Company failed to submit <br />subsidence monitoring reports to the Division between October of 1990 and January <br />of 1993. Mountain Coal Company disputes this allegation. <br />On March 16, 1993, the Division assessed a 5500 penalty for this NOV. On April 14, <br />1993, Mountain Coal Company participated in an assessment conference concerning <br />this NOV. As a result of that conference, the Division modified and terminated the <br />NOV because the Division found that Mountain Coal Company had abated the NOV <br />prior to its issuance. The Division also reduced the proposed penalty from 5500 to <br />5250. The Division did not, however, grant Mountain Coal Company's request that <br />the NOV be vacated. <br />Mountain Coal Company therefore requests that the Board formally review NOV C-93- <br />006. Mountain Coal Company believes that this NOV was improvidently issued and <br />rests on a misapprehension of both the facts underlying the NOV and the legal <br />standard for compliance with subsidence monitoring requirements. <br />Atlantic Rich~ieltl Company <br />