Laserfiche WebLink
1 -A ~t~~ III III III III IIII III <br />P.AxcEI„ 1~19.UE0, HULTIN Be $PAANSTBA, P. C. <br />A77DRNEYg Ai LAW <br />1 SURE aBDD <br />IBOI GLifgRMl. STREET <br />DENVER, COLDRADD BDRO!•M3! <br />TELE PNON[ LT03) E!!-l.00 <br />B RENT C. ANDERSON iniCOR1ER 13D:N [[D-auD <br />June 27, 1991 <br />VIA TELECOPY NO. 832-8106 <br />Ms. Cathy Sogej <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman 8trset, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 <br />Nw ~ ~- cx z <br />DIRECT DIAL <br />(303) 2fl3-6621 <br />Re: Grassy Gap Mine -- Permit No. C-81-039 -- Extension oP <br />Abatement Dates for Notices of Violation C-91-002 and 0- <br />91-003 <br />Dear Cathy: <br />On behalf of the Rockcastle Company ("Rockcastle"), and <br />pursuant to CMLRD Rule 5.03.2(2)(b), Z hereby request that the <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division ("CMLRD") extend the <br />abatement date for the above-rePer4ncad violations until July 29, <br />1991. These violations were issued on April 29, 1991. <br />Consequently, the proposed extended abatement date will not exceed <br />the ninety day abatement limitation set forth in CMLRD Rule <br />5.03.1(1)(0). <br />As you know, the primary dispute regarding the existence of <br />the NOVs was whether Rockcastle was required, under the terms of <br />the June 26, 1990 Agreement between Rockcastle and CMLRD, to <br />perform reclamation activities which were not speciffcally set <br />forth in that Agreement. If Rockcastle successfully argued that <br />the violations wars invalid, no abatement action would be <br />necessary. CMLRD and Rockcastle agreed in early June 1991 that the <br />assessment conference was the appropriate forum in which to resolve <br />this dispute, and that trio assessment conference process would be <br />expedited. However, the assessment conference was ultimately <br />scheduled for June 24, 1991, only four days prior to the abatement <br />date. In the assessment conference held on Juns 24, 1991, the <br />assessment officer upheld the sxistence of the violations. <br />Rockcastle believes that good cause exists for extsnding the <br />abatement deadline because the valid.i.ty of the violations, and the <br />related necessity to complete the abatements, were unresolved unt11 <br />June 24, 1991. Further, as of June 27, 1991, Rockcastle has not <br />rooeived a final settlement agreement to determine whether to <br />accept the prcposed settlement or appeal the existence of the <br />violations to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board. Whiin <br />