Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiuiiiiiu iii <br />999 <br />a 5n~ ~ ~r1~N <br />United States Department of the Interior -~~I'<s=-tiE; <br />OFFICE OF SURI'ACE A1ININC <br />Recl:uu:uwu and Enloe cement <br />N'ashmKOm. U.C. ?UYgO <br />APR 2 0 1995 <br />Ms. Susan J. McCannon <br />Coal Program Supervisor <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 21 5 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Dear Ms. McCannon: <br />~fAY I) i 1995 <br />u1V1$I0rI 01 hllll@ld15 & 1iB010~~ <br />This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1994, requesting informal <br />review of the Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) Director's determination that <br />the Division of Minerals and Geology's (DMG) response to ten-day notice <br />(TDN) number 94-020-352-006 was inappropriate (Powderhorn Coal <br />Company, Roadside Portal Mine1. <br />The TDN alleges that Powderhorn has failed to provide for either a <br />combination of principal and emergency spillways or a single open channel <br />spillway in pond Nos. 1 and 8. There apparently is no dispute between our <br />agencies that the current designs and the spillway configuration of the <br />constructed ponds, while included in the approved permit, do not comply <br />with Colorado Rule 4.05.6(311d-. DMG apparently notified the coal industry <br />in 1991 that due to a change in the Colorado rules, pond designs and <br />construction would need to be modified to comply with those new rules. <br />While Powderhorn redesigned and reconstructed three of its ponds, it did not <br />do so in the case of pond Nos. 1 and 8. <br />DMG contends that in its oversight of the Powderhorn permit, the redesign <br />and reconstruction of the two ponds were somehow overlooked and <br />considers the problem a permit deficiency. DMG notified Powderhorn by <br />letter dated November 30, 1994, of the need to submit a permit revision <br />within 30 days and undertake necessary reconstruction of the ponds within <br />30 days after approval of the revision. <br />The AFO contends that since the ponds are not constructed in accordance <br />with Colorado Rule 4.05.6(3-(d-, there is a violation of a performance <br />standard for which an enforcement action must be issued. <br />