Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.~ <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />RE~E~ V~~ <br />°Cr o 7 iss2 <br />DIVISION OF <br />MINERALS & GEOLOGY <br />October 6, 1992 <br />Assessment Officer <br />Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80202 <br />RE: NOV 92-024. NEW HORIZON MINE. C-61-008 <br />Dear Sir: <br />Western Fuels-Colorado, A Limited Liability Company requests that the referenced notice of violation <br />be vacated. We present the following reasoning in support of our request. The notice of violation was <br />issued for °Failure to provide for, on ponds 2, 4, 5 and 6, either a combination of principal and <br />emergency spillways, or a single spillway configured as required by Rule 4.05.6(3)(e), designed to <br />safely pass the applicable design precipitation event.' <br />• Peabody Coal Company formerly owned the Nucla Mine (now New Horizon Mine). It <br />is my understanding that OMLR had been dealing with Peabody to resolve the issue <br />of dual spillways for the last two years. Apparently, Peabody did not satisfy OMLR's <br />requirement nor was any enforcement action taken against Peabody in this regard. <br />Peabody was allowed by OMLR to apply for a technical revision to their permit to <br />resolve the dual spillway issue. <br />• Peabody applied for a technical revision (TR-7) t0 the permit. They agreed to provide <br />a separate emergency spillway for Pond 6. However, Peabody showed by calculation <br />that emergency spillways for Ponds 2, 4, and 5 were not necessary since they could <br />hold a 100-year, 24 hour storm event. The mine permit was transferred to Western <br />Fuels-Colorado, A Limited Liability Company (WF-C) while the TR-7 application was <br />being processed. Mr. Harry Ranney mailetl to me a June 30, 1992 Adequacy Review <br />