ENFORCE33076 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

__. 1~?;i 1c: ~3 ,:'0929`. ZSE ~._ ..' r.c SCURC~~ LTll PC,GF. 0~ .~ ~ Mr. David A. Berry December 28, 2000 Page 4 d. Bowie will vrovide a $2,000.000 letter of credit to sunplement its bonds. While Bowie and AEI do not have sufficient credit to replace the Frontier bonds at this time, they can and will supplement the Frontier bonds by providing the Division with a $2,000,000 irrevocable 180-day term letter of credit issued by a bank acceptable to the Division on or before January 5, 2001. This should be more than sufficient to address any concerns that the Division might have during the additional 60-day abatement period requested by Bowie. Failure to Extend the Abatement Period Will Cause Grievous Harm to Bowie its Emnloyees. and the Community. As previously discussed, Bowie is not refusing to replace the Frontier bonds; Bowie cannot replace them at this time. Within 60 days, Bowie expects to be able to do so. Until then, $owie cannot. If the abazement period is not extcaded for an additional 60 days, and a cessation order is issued, Bowie will be forced to cease its operations in Colorado. This will expose Bowie's lottgwall equipment to damage resulting from inactivity. Moreover, this wt~l leave Bowie's 170 employees unemployed and will deprive Paonia of all of the ancillary benefits ofhaving this significant and high- paying employer in the azea. Furthermore, the harat to Bowie, and to its employees and the community, wiIl very likely be pertnaneat. Bowie operates 24-hours per day, seven days per week, in order to meet its contractual obligations. A forced cessation of operations would cause Bowie to breach mtmerous cotiuacntal obligatioas and would likely wreck Bowie's financial health and force it i~o bankruptcy, thus impairing its ability to satisfy its reclamation obligations. Therefore, a failure to extend Bowie's abatement period risks causing the very harm that the NOVs were intended to grevertt. Conchuion For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask that the Division grant Bowie a 60~ay adettsion of the abatement period for the above-descnbed NOVs, setting a new abatement deadline of March 9, 2001. I also request review of the NOVs by the Boazd, so that we might preserrt our defrnses to the NOVs themselves, address any remaining issues regarding the abatement period, and discuss posarble alternatives for resolving this matter. I would welcome the opportunity to diswss this matter further with you. D03136'l2.1