GENERAL44788 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p/-~,. Cripple Creek &~ictor Gold Mining Company ~~I ~I~~I~~I~~~~~~I~ e ~ F Jp~ni V2nluf? ~ ~ Vas Peak Mirony Company Manages 999 '®Y/• PO Box t9~. 2755 State Highway 67. V~ctoc Cooratlo 00860 (719)689-2977 FAX (719) 689-326a RECEIVED OCT 2 4 1994 October 20, 1994 Division of Minerals s neology SENT BY FACSIMILE -HARD COPY FOLLOWS BY MAIL Mr. Berhan Keffelew Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Mines and Geology Office of Mined Land Reclamation 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Reference: Cresson Project: Permit Number M-80-244: OMLR Memorandum From H.B.H. Dated October 14. 1994. Dear Mr. Keffelew: The Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company ("CC&V") received, yesterday, a copy of a memorandum signed by Mr. Humphries and dated October 14, 1994 which purportedly summarized the agreements made between CC&V and the Office of Mined Land Reclamation ("Office") at the meeting held on October 13 regarding "Cresson Mine Site Inspections." The second item in that memorandum does not reflect CC&V's understanding of the agreements. Therefore we request that item number 2 be re-reviewed by all in attendance and corrected. CC&V and Golder Associates clearly remember [hat the agreement reached centered on inspectors informing CC&V and recording in their inspection reports any future instances in which Golder Associates was believed to leave made incorrect assertions, to have falsified information, or acted inappropriately in the context of their contractual responsibilities as design engineer and QA/QC contractor. Unfortunately, the October 14th memorandum states that the inspectors are to note instances in which Golder Associates "displayed actions that defend the methods of the operator or changes to approved permit construction specifications" (emphasis added). I believe you will agree, after consultation with those in attendance at the October 13th meeting, that such criteria were not agreed to by CC&V and Golder Associates. In fact, these two criteria were never placed on the agenda for agreement. Further, the two criteria are illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever for criticism to be leveled at Golder if Golder and CC&V are merely in agreement on a topic such that when questioned, Golder agrees with, and therefore appears to defend, CC&V's statements. CC&V and Golder should always, after discussion of a design matter or specification or practice-defined in the specification, be in agreement because we should always agree upon the approved specifications and the approved designs for the Project. Obviously the so-called "defense"_that' is criticized in the memorandum ,~