REP33252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A.J. Sialdron February 17, 1995 Re: 1993 and 1999 Annual Fydrologic Reports dispute this fact. However, there was ice along the bank of the river that made it hazardous to collect w a er samples." "The monitoring plan also contemplates monthly depth to caat.er and field tests for wells SC-1, SC-2 and SC-3. A decision was mrde t.o forego the monitoring in both January and February because snow cone"itions made access to the wells difficult and potent_ally unsafe." "The bottom line to this question is cmployr•c safct.y. Somerset c:•i11 not allow an employee to walk out on a frozen river hank to collect a sample. Likewise, if snow rs much over t~:•clve inches deep, it is not safe or feasible for an emplo}•ce to ~•alk to a water monitoring station." ,4~ri1 "., 199-} letter, from SYC to the Division, Re: Somerset ?:fining Company Permit l;o. C-81-022, copy enclosed. "The Company h~.d budgeted to hire an environmental compliance coordinator in June of this }•car. As we discussed at the meeting, the Company has r~nedited this schedule and has retained a personnel search sorvice to identify potential candidates for the position as soon as possible." By April 12, 1994, o:hile on another job site in Pennsylvania, I had several telephone conversations with the recruiter and !•'alt S•:ri~ht of S?1C regarding the position, and had set an interview meeting for April 16, in Pittsburgh, Pa. April 13, 7994 letter, from the Division to SN,C, Re: Pattern of Violations, Somerset ?line, Permit \o. C-81-022, copy enclosed. "The compliance record for the Somerset Mine has boon problematic in the recent past; hormvcr, Somerset ?lining Company appears to be taking affirmative ste?s to improve the situation." "Given the specific circumstances involved in this case, and orr belief that Somerset Yining Company is working aggressively to resolve the previous compliance issues, we find that, at this time, the issue of a "show cause order" would be demonstrably unjust.." April 14, 199 letter, from the Division to SYC, Re: Somerset/Sanborn Creek vine, Permit Vo. C-81-022 \OV C-94-007, copy enclosed. "l:Pon review of inspection reports, aerial photographs, and weather conditions in the !North Fork Valley during January and February 1994, the Division has determined that Somerset. ?fining Company's lack of due diligence in performing hydrologic monitoring required by Permit \o. C-81-022 is a viola ion of tlu Rules of the Colorado Yined Land Rcc}amation Board for Coal Yining. See enclosed Xotice of Violation." The letter rer~uired a minor revision t.o the permit, ~•~hich became ";inor Revision \o. 24. "The Division does not fees that conditions described in a letter From J.E. Stover and Associates Sco:,•sultant to SYCI dated Yarch 31, ?994, were bed enough to ?recludc required I:ydroloeic monitoring of groundwater wells SC-1, SC-2, SC-3 and surface water monitoring sites \F-1 and ~'F-2 . " 6