Laserfiche WebLink
insure that the PAP remains accurate. I openly discussed ow intention to submit the follow-up <br />revision similar to TR-52. <br />4. MR-76 - Hubbazd Fansite Boreholes - As Built Permitting. <br />MR-76 was submitted to the Division with a cover letter dated February 1, 2006. While required <br />as NOV No. CV-2006-001 Abatement, the MR was identical to the MR planned to have been <br />submitted to the Division aRer the boreholes were completed. Further, when queried about <br />borehole reclamation bonding considerations, the Division indicated that (and Oxbow agrees) the <br />most appropriate time to deat with these bond issues is a deferral until Permit Mid-Term Review. <br />Curiously, even today, the bonding ofthe boreholes appeazs to not be a major concern. <br />Conclusion <br />We believe it has been long-standing Division policy and practice that constructed surface <br />facilities can deviate from submitted plans aslong asfollow-up revisions aze promptly submitted <br />to provide facility as-builts and to rectify any remaining issues. Implementing this practice has <br />shown to be the most efficient way to handle such construction projects. Were the Division to <br />require revisions during construction for each minor deviation from the "plan', construction <br />projects could experience endless, and costly construction delays. <br />Such is the case with this NOV. The NOV clearly represents an enforcement action for borehole <br />completion that otherwise was going to be handled as a follow up revision with as-built facility <br />information. <br />We believe the issuance of this NOV was unwarranted and respectfully request that it be vacated. <br />Please contact me at 970-929-5806 if you have questions or need additional information. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~~ ~ ~~~ <br />James A. Kiger <br />Environmental Coordinator <br />Xc: Jim Cooper (OMLLC) <br />Jim Stark (CDMG) -~ <br />files <br />• page 3 <br />