Laserfiche WebLink
., <br />• • iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />/'~ /~ Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company 999 <br />~~ A Join VenWre -Pikes Peak M~nmg Company. Manager RECEIVED <br />PO. Box 191, 2755 State Highway 67, Victor, Colorado 80860 <br />~~ FAX((6916e973254 OCT ~5 1994 <br />~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ,.,~nerais & Geology <br />October 20, 1994 <br />SENT BY FACSIMILE -HARD COPY FOLLOWS BY MAIL <br />Mr. Berhan Keffelew <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources <br />Division of Mines and Geology <br />Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Reference: Cresson Project: Permit Number M-80-244: OMLR Memorandum From <br />H.B.H. Dated October 14. 1994. <br />Dear Mr. Keffelew: <br />The Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company ("CC&V") received, yesterday, a copy of <br />a memorandum signed by Mr. Humphries and dated October ]4, 1994 which purportedly <br />summarized the agreements made between CC&V and the Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />("Office") at the meeting held on October 13 regarding "Cresson Mine Site Inspections." The <br />second item in that memorandum does not reFlect CC&V's understanding of the agreements. <br />Therefore we request that item number 2 be re-reviewed by all in attendance and corrected. <br />CC&V and Golder Associates clearly remember that the agreement reached centered on <br />inspectors informing CC&V and recording in their inspection reports any future instances in <br />which Golder Associates was believed to have made incorrect assertions, to have falsified <br />information, or acted inappropriately in the context of their contractual responsibilities as design <br />engineer and QA/QC contractor. Unfortunately, the October 14th memorandum states that the <br />inspectors are to note instances in which Golder Associates "displayed actions that defend the <br />methods of the operator or changes to approved permit construction specifications" <br />(emphasis added). I believe you will agree, after consultation with those in attendance at the <br />October 13th meeting, that such criteria were not agreed to by CC&V and Golder Associates. <br />In fact, these two criteria were never placed on the agenda for agreement. Further, the two <br />criteria are illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever for criticism to be leveled at Golder if <br />Golder and CC&V are merely in agreement on a topic such that when questioned, Golder agrees <br />with, and therefore appears to defend, CC&V's statements. CC&V and Golder should always, <br />after discussion of a design matter or specification or practice-defined in the specification, be <br />in agreement because we should always agree upon the approved specifications and the approved <br />designs for the Project. Obviously the so-called "defense" that is criticized in the memorandum <br />