Laserfiche WebLink
Wage 4 <br /> should be changed to"MidCon." In addition,the third to the last line should read that DMG <br /> will consider"and to the extent feasible, ray incorporate comments..." This change is <br /> consistent with the non-binding nature of MidCon's comments. Lastly, in the last line of <br /> this paragraph after the word"receipt" add the words"of the bid draft(s)." <br /> Paragraph 13 should reflect that the Division will use funds toward completing reclamation, <br /> rather than stating that reclamation will be completed. As stated earlier, the Division has <br /> every desire to complete;reclamation with the funds provided under the liquidation plan. <br /> However,the Division cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. Accordingly, the third <br /> line should read"as long as the funds are used toward completing reclamation with the <br /> remaining funds from MCR's bankruptcy...." As stated earlier and as agreed upon by the <br /> parties,the Division has the sole discretion as to implementation of reclamation with <br /> available funds. Accordingly,this suggested change in the language is consistent with our <br /> agreement. <br /> Page S,under AGR>FEME,NT <br /> Paragraph 15,in line 7, should be changed to state that MCR has been in contact with <br /> CDPHE, and not"the parties." The issue in this sentence is MCR's NPDES permit and <br /> MCR's contact with the health department_ The Division did not discuss with CDPHE <br /> MCR's permit or whether MCR should continue on the permit or be released from certain <br /> responsibilities. Such issues are MCR's responsibilities. Also, in line 10,DMG is agreeing <br /> to apply for stormwater permit(s)under the terms and conditions set forth in the Division's <br /> letter of May 3 to CDPIIE. DMG's agreement to apply for the permits satisfies your concern <br /> about MCR and the Division"share the risk"concerning water quality related issues. <br /> Accordingly,the language in my May 12 letter should be substituted for the language in the <br /> present draft, with an updated list of the outfalls to be included in the stormwater application. <br /> In addition to the May 12 language, we should add a sentence which states that the parties <br /> understand and agree that DMG is in no way assuming any responsibility for any outfall <br /> which, in whole or in part, involves mine water discharge. <br /> In addition,DMG will not agree to be primarily responsible for all outfalls during the time <br /> MCR and the Division are stormwater co-permittees. The Division will not assume any <br /> responsibility for outfalls which have mine water discharge, and will not agree to be <br /> primarily responsible for outfalls which it has not affected, or will not affect, ever or during <br /> the time DMG and MCR are co-permittees. <br /> I agree with you that we need to further identify the ponds applicable to the Division's <br /> application for a stormwater permit. Steve Render inspected the 5 mine recently. It is the <br /> Division's understanding that outfall 003 is a pipe and 017 is the pond which receives mine <br /> water discharge from the pipe. Given that both of these outfalls involve rnine water <br /> discharge, DMG will not take responsibility for them. In addition, Steve has conferred with <br /> the health department about other outfalls and based on the information he acquired from <br /> SO'd !zi:8 66, 8Z 6pW 8SS199820s�:XPA <br />