Laserfiche WebLink
''~ Mountain Coal Company <br />West Elk Mine <br />Post Office Bax 591 <br />Somerset, Colorado 81434 <br />Telephone 970.929-5015 <br /> <br />Ul.L ~ 2 19'.17 <br /> <br />December 17. 1997 <br />Mr. Michael Long <br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />999 <br />RE: Request to Vacate NOV CV-97-020; West Elk Mine; Permit No. C-80-007 <br />Dear Mr. Long: <br />Mountain Coal Company (MCC) respectfully requests the Division vacate the above <br />referenced Notice of Violation (NOV) based upon the attached information. <br />Attached are MCC's responses to the incompleteness notice for Minor Revision No. <br />208 and responses to the Division's review letter of the 1996 Annual Hydrology <br />Report. Both responses fully assert our position as to why the violation should be <br />vacated. <br />To summarize MCC's position: <br />•MCC was not aware that the Division was requiring that our permit be <br />changed to incorporate the items in Minor Revision No. 208. Nor was there a <br />date established by the Division in which the incompleteness issues were to be <br />addressed. <br />•In addition to providing a minor revision application on February 13, 1996, <br />which was requested by the Division in a letter dated December 9, 1996, to <br />improve the hydrologic monitoring program, MCC also provided responses to <br />the December letter in a letter dated February l0, 1997. The February letter <br />explained our position as to why all of the requested improvements had not been <br />included in the revision. The incompleteness letter for Minor Revision No. 208 <br />does not appear to have even considered those responses. <br />•Discussions with the Division had been held regarding the items presented in <br />the incompleteness letter for Minor Revision No. 208. MCC had not been <br />ignoring their request, as assumed in the NOV. <br />•The monitoring network was and is currently being evaluated by MCC and our <br />consultants, as previously discussed with the Division. The NOV does not <br />appear to take these actions into consideration. <br />•Many of the flows, lab analyses, and field parameters had been collected and <br />reported but had inadvertently been left offthe tables presented in the AHR. <br />