2008-11-06_REVISION - M1980244 ‎(3)‎

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 11/6/2008
• Doc Name: Draft of Division decision document for review and edit
• From: DRMS-dab
• To: AGO & DRMS-bmk and ajw
• Type & Sequence: AM9
• Email Name: BMK
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Berhan, I understand that CDPHE can only enforce the CDPS. However, because of CDPHE's
authority, the proposed condition about monitoring is something separate from the CDPS.
DRMS has authority over hydrologic
balance issues. Does DRMS have a problem with the proposed monitoring
condition?
>>> "Keffelew, Berhan" <[e-mail]> 11/6/2008 5:32 AM
Jeff,
Like I told you yesterday, DRMS does not have any kind of GW monitoring points in the
Carlton Tunnel area and as such no numeric protection levels have been set. The discharge
and any seeps from the tunnel and the ponds are covered under the CDOH&E NPDES PERMIT,
based on the receiving stream standards, for Four Mile Creek. Only the CDOH&E can
terminate the permit and enforce the permit conditions. As long as all parties understand,
that the DRMS does not have nay kind of enforcement authority on the permit, that is
acceptable as written.
Requesting to be informed, when a revision is submitted to the DRMS, to backfill the North.
Cresson area to approximate original contour. Once the Division receives the revision
after a decision has been made whether it should be a TR, or an Amendment, since there is
a standing MLRD BOARD order, that requires CC&V to provide Teller County with copies of
ALL revisions submitted to DRMS, I see no problem with CC&V notifying Jeff and providing
him a copy of the TR, which will also be available for public review at our office.
However, Jeff must understand that if the DRMS decides to have CC&V submit the backfilling
of the revision as a TR, rather than an Amendment, prior to submittal of the revision (due
to revision fee differences) then his only option is to appeal the Division's decision in
accordance with Rule 1.4.11 (b). All his comments and suggestions will have to be directed
to CC&V. DRMS rarely solicits or accepts comments during a TR approval process. Thank you
again for all your help !
From: Jeff Fugate (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Keffelew, Berhan; Berry, David; Waldron, Tony
Cc: Cheryl Linden
Subject: Draft of Division decision document for review and edit
All,
Attached is a draft of the division decision document for your review and edit. The
language used in the conditions was provided by Peter O'Connor and Jeff Parsons, and has
been slightly changed so that CC&V, not DRMS, will provide notice to Parsons of subsequent
TR's. At this time I have not sent a copy of this draft to Jeff or Peter for review, and
I have left messages with both to have them explain how they define "post mine closure" so
that everyone is on the same page.
I would like to get your position on what post mine closure means to the Division and also
whether we should better define what is meant by "monitoring of the Carlton Tunnel flows"
as used in Condition #1. Flows is a very general term. We can discuss tomorrow, and I
would like to have any edits or additions tomorrow so that I can circulate this with
O'Connor and Parsons. If all are in agreement, Parsons will submit the withdrawal form
tomorrow pm and the decision can be made formal. We can then officially cancel the
hearing. I plan on drafting a short cover letter for the Board to explain what happened
3