ENFORCE28524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 999 5731 State Highway 13 Meeker, Colorado B1fa41 (970)8241572 (970)824-4459 FAX Jamea A. Klger Senior Environmental Engineer August 2, 1996 Mr. Mike Long Division Director Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 215 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: Permit C-81-019, Colowyo Coal Company L.P. NOVs C-96-005 and C-96-006 Dear Mr. Long: ocC.~l\IED AUG ~l5 1996 Oivisi~n ni ~nnelais a ueu'uUv Enclosed please fmd Colowyo Coal Company L.P.'s check in the amount of $3200 as payment in full for penalties assessed in the above-referenced NOVs. As explained in more detail below, Colowyo does not agree with the decisions issued on these NOVs, or with the penalty assessments. Nevertheless, Colowyo has decided to pay the assessed penalties and continue its ongoing work with the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) to satisfy any retraining concerns with Colowyo's sediment ponds. The following is a short explanation, for the record, of Colowyo's opposition to these two NOVs: NOV C-96-005. This NOV was issued, in part, as the result of the laboratory reporting a settleable solids result of 580 mg/1 for a discharge from Colowyo's Gulch A Pond. As Colowyo explained at the NOV conference, this result was anomalous -- 58% of the water could not physically have been settleable solids, as this result indicates. Upon further inquiry with the lab, Colowyo learned that the lab had not been certain how to interpret the sample results. In fact, as the subsequent letter from the lab indicated, ~ solids settled from the sample in the test. egg Attachment 1. The subsequent letter from the laboratory calling into question its previously reported sample result should have been given more weight by the conference officer than it was. While the letter notes that interpretation of the results is subjective, it also flatly states that t>s material settled out during the test. Thus, the sample did not exceed the applicable permit limit and cannot therefore be the basis for an NOV.