ENFORCE22864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Justification of Settlement Agreement Notice of Violation C-92-024 Conference Summary Harry Ranney of the Division began the conference with a discussion of the history of the issues leading to the issuance of this NOV. He explained that Peabody Coal Co. (the previous permittee for the mine) submitted a revision application in August, 1991 addressing the requirements of a regulatory change with regard to emergency spillways of sediment ponds. Because of adequacy questions which were never completely answered, this revision application was denied by the Division in April, 1992. Peabody submitted a second revision application in April, 1992. Shortly thereafter, Western Fuels-Colorado became the permittee when the Division approved a succession of operator request on May 15, 1992. Adequacy concerns in the Peabody revision application were then pursued with Western Fuels. Those concerns are still being addressed by the operator so, the revision application is still under review. Mr. Ranney conducted an inspection of the Nucla Mine on August 13, 1992. At that time, the emergency spillways of the ponds in question had not been modified in compliance with the regulations. Consequently, NOV C-92-024 was issued on August 26, 1992. Murari Shrestha represented Western Fuels-Colorado at the conference. Mr. Shrestha presented a letter which contained a summary of the history discussed above. The letter explains that Western Fuels has "diligently pursued to resolve the spillway issue" and requests that the NOV be vacated because WFC was not a party to the spillway issues when they arose and was not given adequate opportunity to correct the situation. Mr. Shrestha also attached a MLRD letter dated October 6, 1987 as evidence that the ponds in question had been designed to contain runoff from a 100- year, 24-hour storm. Mr. Ranney did agree that WFC has been making a diligent effort to resolve the spillway issues. Regarding the 1987 MLRD memo, Mr. Ranney pointed out that the memo indicated the designed spillways would pass runoff from a 100-year storm. Therefore, the spillways are still subject to the requirements of the 1991 regulation change.