Laserfiche WebLink
T BY:?~dHS III'll'll''~II~~'I~ 6-27-91 : 1602 : y~V ~/ <br />.~; rte, <br />PAECEL, MAUBO, $ULTTN & SP.AgrTSTag, P. C. <br />1 ATYORNEYB A7 I.AW ' <br />9UliE 3900 <br />lDOf CALIfOPNfw BTPEET <br />DENVER, COLORAOp 901:0!•!939 <br />TILE PMON[ 8031 !9!•9.00 <br />B RENT C. ANOER°..ON T[L[OOp1ER t707J l9D-a GO DIRECT DIAL <br />(303) 093-6621 <br />June 27, 1991 <br />VIA TELECOPY NQ. 832-8106 <br />Ms. Cathy Bagej <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 <br />Re: Grassy Gap Mine -- Permit No. c-81-439 -- Extension oP <br />Abatement Dates for Notices of Violation c-91-002 and C- <br />91-003 <br />Dear Cathy: <br />On behalf of the Rockcastle Company ("Rockcastle"), and <br />pursuant to CMI,RD Rule 5.03.2 (2) (b) , x hereby request that the <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation division ("CMLRD") extend the <br />abatement date for the above-referenced violations until July 29, <br />1991. Theca violations were issued on April 29, 1991. <br />Consequentiy, the proposed extended abatement date will not exceed <br />the ninety day abatement limitation set forth in CMLRD Rula <br />5.03.1(1)(0). <br />As you know, the primary dispute regarding the existence of <br />the NOVs was whether Rockcastle was required, under the terms of <br />the June 26, 1490 Agreement between Rockcastle and CMLRD, to <br />perform reclamation activities which were not specifically set <br />forth in that Agreement. It Rockcastle successfully argued that <br />the violations were invalid, no abatement action would be <br />necessary. CMLRD and Rockcastle agreed in early June 1991 that the <br />assessment conference was the appropriate forum in which to resolve <br />this dispute, and that the assessment conference process would be <br />expedited. 8owevQr, the assessment conference was ultimately <br />scheduled for June 24, 1991, only four days prior to the abatement <br />date. In the assessment oonferenoe held on June 24, 1991, the <br />assessment officer uphold the existence of the violations, <br />Rockcastle bsliavss that good cause exists for extending trie <br />abatement deadline because the validity of the violations, and the <br />ralatad necessity to complete the abatamants, ware unresolved until <br />June 24, 1991. Fuzther, as of June 27, 1991, Roakcastle has not <br />rsaaived a final settlement agreement to determine whether to <br />accept the proposed settlement or appeal the existenae of the <br />violations to the Calorada Mined Land Reclamation Board. Whilo <br /> <br />