ENFORCE36880 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PAGE 2 October 6, 1992 letter since WF-C was the legal pertnittee at this time. The letter was received on July 6, 1992. Nine issues were raised in this letter. The letter had no deadline for submitting response. A copy of the letter was also mailed to Peabody. Personnel from Peabody were contacted at various times with requests to respond to the adequacy letter, (verbal communication with Gary Wendt on July 7 and with Ron Gehrke on July 8). A formal letter requesting this information was mailed to Frank Farnsworth, Director of Engineedng, on July 24. 1 also called Mr. Famsworth on Juty 27 regarding my letter. He said they were working on the response. • On August 6, 1992, Mr. Harty Ranney informed me that the OSM might make an oversight visit the following week and that he might have to issue a citation for not having required spillways in the ponds if a response to his adequacy letter was not received by that time. I called Mr. Farnsworth of Peabody immediately and informed him of this conversation. I also wrote to him in this regard on the following day, August 7. • I received Peabody's response on August 13, 1992. I immediately drafted our response to Mr. Ranney's letter based upon the information provided by Peabody and sent it to OMLR through a courier. OMLR received this response on the same day. This was the same day that Mr. Harry Ranney of OMLR and Mr. Gary Fritz of OSM inspected the mine site, and Mr. Ranney issued the NOV, • We believe that we have diligently pursued to resolve the spillway issue. In fact, at one time, I even asked Mr. Ranney if it was alright to go ahead and start constructing the pond 6 spillway. I was told to wait since the design was not approved. Furthermore, a separate approval for Pond 6 could not be given when the application was for ponds 2, 4 and 5 also. • We believe that WF-C should have been given additional time to resolve the issues before a Notice of Violation was issued. • WF-C is anxiously waiting to hear OMLR's decision regarding our August 13, 1992 response. We are ready to proceed to execute whatever OMLR's decision may be. • As a matter of great interest and relevance, I have come across an OMLR internal memo written by Mr. John T. Doerfer to Peter V. O'Connor. This memo, dated January 28, 1987, suggests that OMLR staff had determined that Ponds 2, 4 and 5 were designed to contain 100-year, 24 hour storm event. A copy of this letter is