Laserfiche WebLink
~~ <br />Chronology of Events Page 2 <br />March 3, 1993 <br />requirement was put back into the permit. <br />(A portion of this letter is attached). <br />June 3. 1992: Complete inspection of the West Elk Mine <br />conducted by the Division. A review of the <br />records noted that subsidence survey data was <br />completed 1-23-92. <br />September 15. 1992: Complete inspection of the West Elk Mine <br />conducted by the Division. A review of the <br />records noted that subsidence survey data was <br />completed Spring 1992. <br />November 18. 1992: Complete inspection of the West Elk Mine <br />conducted by the Division. A review of the <br />records noted that subsidence survey data had <br />been completed through June 1992. <br />November 30. 1992: Responses to the Division's letter of June 1, <br />1992, received from the West Elk Mine. The <br />requirement in stipulation 17 was added to page <br />2.05-147 of the permit document. A note was <br />made by the Division to terminate the <br />stipulation. (A portion of this letter is <br />attached). <br />December 2. 1992: Division writes second renewal adequacy review <br />letter which confirms that Stipulation 17 will <br />be terminated. (A portion of this letter is <br />attached). <br />Januarv 1993: Upon further review by the Division, it was <br />noted that Stipulation 17 contained two parts. <br />The first part, which required MCC to submit <br />reports of its subsidence monitoring program on <br />a semi-annual basis has been complied with as <br />stated previously, however, the second part <br />requires submittal of a revised report format, <br />which has not been complied with. Since, the <br />second part has not been complied with, the <br />stipulation was not terminated. <br />Januarv 11. 1993: Semi-annual subsidence report received. Report <br />was determined to be insufficient as submitted. <br />January 29. 1993: Technical Revision 64 and Minor Revision 84 <br />submitted. The cover letter mentions that MCC <br />disagrees with the status on specific <br />stipulations. (A portion of this letter is <br />attached). <br />