Laserfiche WebLink
.~ <br />J <br />_. <br />Dorchester <br />Coal Compa• <br />5751 Roslyn <br />E nFleu•ood. Colorado BOI I I <br />N'rilert Direct Dial Number <br />(707) 741-1578 <br />May 25, 1982 <br />iiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii <br />999 <br />Hand Delivered <br />- Mr. Dave Shelton, Director <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division ~~s ~ ~~o n~r~ <br />1313 Sherman St. #423 G~~ ~~ V/ L <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: Additional Facts, NOV #82-27 ~;,`( 2 ~ 19$2 <br />Dorchester #1 Mine <br />Fremont County, Colorado MINED LAND RECLAMATION <br />Dear Mr. Shelton: Cc!o. Dent. nt Nat"~21 R.~sc~~ce~ <br />On May 10, 1982, an inspection of the Dorchester #1 Mine was conducted by <br />Ms. Carol Russell of your staff. As a result of that inspection, a notice <br />of violation (#82-27) was issued concerning a discharge from the main <br />facilities yard sediment pond. This letter is written pursuant to Rule <br />- 5.40.3(1) to advise you of additional facts prior to your agency's deter- <br />mination of a proposed civil penalty. On. the basis of the facts outlined <br />below, Dorchester specifically requests that the notice of violation be <br />vacated immediately. <br />The notice of violation was apparently written as a,result of a <br />discharge of water from our main facilities area pond (NPDES discharge <br />permit No. 0636595-OOI). Reports from personnel on site at the time <br />of inspection indicate that the discharge occurred for approximately <br />10-15 minutes at a rate of 8-10 gallons per minute. <br />The point of discharge is permitted with the Colorado Department of <br />Health through the NPDES program. Under the terms of that permit, dis- <br />charge of effluent is permitted and effluent limitations are set forth. <br />A copy of the permit's effluent limitations is enclosed for your review. <br />At the time of the inspection, a sample of the discharge water was <br />taken and subsequently analyzed. The results of that analysis are en- <br />closed. It is clear from those analyses that the quality of the water <br />discharged fell within all effluent limitations specified in the <br />In the light of this information, we would suggest that the discharge <br />referred in NOV 82-27 v+as a legal discharge within the rules of the <br />Colorado Department of Health NPDES program. We would further suggest <br />that Dorchester Coal has fulfilled its obligation to "minimize dis- <br />burbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance" and that the allegation <br />I t r u n r U... I• !rr ('u, (urnur nlirin <br />