GENERAL47858

• Permit No: C1981008
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 5/25/1988
• Doc Name: PROPOSED DECISION & FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE FOR RN1
• Permit Index Doc Type: FINDINGS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Summary
The Review Process, Description of the Environment
and
Description of the Operations and Reclamation Plan
The Review Process
The Nucla Mine, operated by Peabody, is located in Montrose Lounty
approximately two and one-half miles northwest of the town of Nucla. The mine
has been operated by Peabody since 1963.
The original permanent program permit application was submitted by Peabody on
January 9, 1981. The Division proposed to approve this application as
detailed in the proposed decision and findings of compliance document dated
April 14, 1983. This decision to approve became final and Permit C-81-008 was
issued to Peabody on May 26, 1983 for five-year term.
The Nucla Mine temporarily ceased operations in 1983 following closure of the
Colorado-Ute Nucla Generating Station for reconstruction purposes. With the
reactivation of the Nucal Mine in 1986, Peabody extensively modified the
approved permit by the submittal of the ten-volume Permit Revision No. 1
application. Because of the extensive nature of this revision, the Division
issued new findings of compliance on April 2, 1987.
As required by Rule 2.08.5(2)(a), the Division sent notice to Peabody on
August 21, 1987 pertaining to the expiration of Permit C-81-008 on May 26,
1988 and the right of successive renewal. Peabody submitted Permit Renewal
No. 1 application on November 25, 1987 which was received by the Division on
November 27, 1987 (prior to the 180-day filing date of November 30, 1987).
This application was deemed complete by the Division on December 4, 1987 and
Peabody began publishing public notice of this renewal application in the
San Miguel Public Forum on January 21, 1988. During the public comment
period, two-Tetters were received: an objection letter from Ms. Jenni
Nylund-Naff and a letter requesting guarantee of water quality and quantity
from the Colorado Co-operative Company. Resolution pertaining to Ms.
Nylund-Naff's letter is addressed below and to Colorado Co-operative Company's
letter is addressed in Section V - Surface Water Hydrology of this document.
Ms. Nylund-Naff's letter of February 11, 1988 addressed three concerns:
damage to roads caused by mine equipment; damage to cisterns and foundations
in the area caused by blasting activities; and rocks strewn on the roads
caused by blasting activities. The allegation pertaining to road damage
caused by mine equipment is outside the jurisdiction of this law and Ms.
Nylund-Naff was directed to contact Montrose County. The allegation
pertaining to damage to cisterns and foundations was described in very
generalized terms. Requests of February 25, 1988 and March 17, 1988 for
additional information went unanswered; therefore, the Division was unable to
pursue this allegation. The allegation pertaining to rocks strewn on the
roads caused by blasting operations was addressed by Peabody on 14arch 11,
1988. Peabody specified that blasting operations are conducted in accordance
with applicable laws and that debris on the roads is caked mud falling off of
haul trucks, farm implements, and garbage trucks. The Division has not
-4- May 6, 1988