My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE27371
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE27371
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:35:01 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:35:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
12/13/1994
Doc Name
NOV C-94-029 PN C-81-071
From
CYPRUS YAMPA VALLEY
To
DMG
Violation No.
CV1994029
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
crpRUs <br />Yampananey <br />December 7, 1994 <br />• <br />Kent Gorham <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 <br />RE: NOV C-94-029 <br />Permit No. C-81-071 <br />Dear Mr. Gorham: <br />• 1111111111111111111 <br />Cyprus Yampa Valley Coal Corporation <br />29587 Routt County Road N27 <br />Oak Creek, Colorado 60467 <br />303-8793800 <br />RE~E~~Fn <br />~£C <br />13 19y~ <br />Division of Mmera S ~ U~o/o9y <br />A bit of confusion resides over the submittal of the abatement <br />information for the above referenced NOV. Colorado Yampa Coal <br />Company did not willfully or knowingly fail to comply with the <br />abatement measures. The data that is alleged to be missing cannot <br />be collected due to the passage of the required monitoring period. <br />The delay upon supplying the explanation for missing the sampling <br />is based upon a prior discussion in which I presented Colorado <br />Yampa Coal Company's position on the sufficiency of the spoil <br />spring sampling. It was my understanding that the Division would <br />consider the verbal argument presented for not obtaining samples <br />from selected spoil springs. . <br />The confusion over the spoil spring sampling program resides in the <br />fact that CYCC previously did extra sampling on some of the springs <br />and submitted the data. However, it is CYCC's understanding that <br />only a composite sample is required from the A, B, C, and is <br />obtained at site D. This understanding was discussed with prior a <br />CYCC employee responsible for conducting the sampling. This <br />employee indicated that this topic had been discussed previously <br />with the Division and it was agreed that CYCC was conducting its <br />sampling program in accordance with its permit. The field <br />parameters were obtained for the individual springs and the <br />composite was taken from site D. This data was submitted <br />previously to the Division. Based upon this CYCC believes that it <br />complied with the requirements of the permit. The schedule <br />presented on page EX 8-8 provides for composite sampling. <br />If there are further questions, please contact me at your <br />convenience. <br />Sind <br />ii~~~ <br />Richard Mills <br />Manager, Surface/Environment <br />file c:\wp51 \permt94\no~'9~1.029 cyc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.