My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06151
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06151
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:21:28 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:27:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8274.400
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - General Basinwide Salinity Issues - NPDES
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/1995
Author
Applied Hydrology
Title
Salinity Control Study - NPDES Permit No. CO - 0042161 - Prepared for Twentymile Coal Company
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />"';- <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />NPDES (permit No. CO-0042161 <br />Salinity Control Study <br /> <br />Twentymile Coal Company <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />w::.. <br />..... <br /> <br />4.2 Feasibility and Cost Evaluation 'of Options <br /> <br />4.2.1 E1limination of Salt Discharge - Option 1 <br /> <br />The consmtction of two injection wells for this option is technically feasible. An injection <br />well penjlit would be required from EFA. It is uncertain whether this permit could ,be <br />obtained ~d whether the Dakota Sandstone would prove suitable for injection. Furthermore, <br />the depletion of water by deep well injection may require a surface water right. Since the <br />surface water rights in the vicinity are connected with flood irrigation in the valIey, if is <br />possible t)1atTwentymile Coal Company could be prohibited from injecting, the discharge if <br />water depletion results in material damage to the quantity of water supplying a designated <br />Alluvial Valle)' Floor. <br /> <br />Cost estif\lates for Option' 1 were based on estimates from drillers and in-house experience at <br />installing i deep, large diameter wells (12-incb. diameter injection well to a d\l\)th of <br />approxim4tely 6,000 feet, with stainless steel screen and pressure we\\ heads). Costs eStimates <br />for transfer pumps were obtained from vendors, Piping cost was determined for two injection <br />wells eaqh approximately 1,000 feet from the pump station adjacent to the existipg <br />sedimentation pond. Other costs were calculated using estimating methods outlined in cOst <br />estimatio~ haildbookS and design texts. References included Means Site Work & L\\rtds~ve <br />Cost Datt 12th Ed.,R.S, Means Co. Inc., 1993. The capital cost of Option 1 is $4,793,000 <br />with annuM operating costs of $106,000. Capital and operating costs are itemized in Table 6. ' <br /> <br />Option 1 lvould eliminate salt loading by mine dewatering by an average of 1.83 tons per day <br />or 668 tons/year, at a capital cost of $7,176 per ton over one year's operation and an annu,'al <br />operating :cost of $159 per ton. ' Since the injection system is designed to remove the entire <br />discharge !up to 1,000 gpm, the flows in Fish Creek would be reduced accordingly. The salt <br />loads and! TDS in Fish Creek would be reduced measurably during low' flows but not <br />measurably at high flows, The feasibility of permitting two deep injection wells to dispose the <br />entire disqharge is uncertain as would be the actual capacity of these injection wells. <br /> <br />^:\ <br />~ <br />1 <br />,'.\ <br />1 <br />., <br />. A <br /> <br />I <br />, <br />j <br />" <br />1 <br />J <br /> <br />AHA F'.tleoame::t4SALCNl.DOC <br /> <br />Page 26 <br /> <br />11:59 AM 09n9195 <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.