GENERAL37028 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iii iiiiiiiiii-ii-ii RoeuT DuAN ET 6EnnETN eALDONa John A. rn uLSOn CDWI.RO MULXALL. Jw. pO 6CRT C. CVTTCw SCOTT M. BALCOXB OAVIO w. STy pG[5 LAwwEHCE R. OR[ER SCOTT nCIMM15 PAnCLA N. PRCSCOii RO BCRT N. MODNC April 23, 1986 DELANEY EC BALCOMB, P. G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWCR )90 G LENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO RIBOY Mr. David C. Shelton, Director Mined Land Reclamation Division 423 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Re Dear Mr. Shelton: BIB COLORADO sV CN V C 915-66A6 TELEPHONE 9A5-]J)I •REA COOC JOJ ~~~~~~~' APR 2 ~ i986 MiPif~ ~ f;~f~;i.:-a~~,l s TI<iP~ COia, Deft. Of I~~i'fs4! d~i~:~l~: CMLRD NOV No. C-85-082 Sun Coal Company Request to Vacate or Modify Civil Penalty Sun Coal Company, Inc. (Sun Coal) respectfully requests that you vacate the above-captioned NOV or modify the proposed civil penalty by reducing the pro- posed fault assessment and by the awarding of good faith assessment. In support of this request, Sun Coal submits the following points: Request to Vacate A. CMLRD on site inspection on October 15, 1985, and the resulting NOY No. C-85-082 was conducted as the CMLRD's response to GSM's Ten Day Notice (TDN #85-2-030-2) issued on October 2, 1985, following GSM's on-site (complete over- sight version) inspection of the Meadows No. 1 Mine on September 26-27, 1985. The OSM inspector (Ronald N. Sassaman) did note at the bottom of the first handwritten page of this report that "Sun Coal's rill and gully control plan has not yet been approved by MLRD." Sun Coal did, in fact, submit on August 6, 1985, a rill and gully plan as a TR to the approved reclamation permit. It is our belief that such a plan was still pending review and final decision by CMLRD on the dates of the OSM inspection and the subsequent CMLRD inspection. It was recently reported by MARC (Mining and Reclamation Council of America) in one of their newsletters that OSM had agreed that a primary staters acknowledgement of a pending permit revision was an "appropriate response" to an OSM Ten Day Notice alleging a violation or condition which was the subject of the pending permit revision. I have recently confirmed this agreement with a MARC representative. However, we cannot confirm that such an agreement has been reduced to a written OSM policy document and disseminated to all OSM field offi- ces. I will attempt to provide you with a copy of the MARC newsletter describ- ing such an agreement.