Laserfiche WebLink
Watterson, Brian <br />From: Atkinson - DNR, Bill <bill.atkinson@state.co.us> <br />Sent: Thursday, June 16, 201612:16 AM <br />To: Nettleton, Jerry; Sherman Hebein - DNR; Melynda May - DNR; Pete Cadmus - DNR; <br />Justin Pollock - DNR; Jim Haskins; Steve Znamenacek - DNR <br />Cc: jared.ebert@state.co.us; Watterson, Brian <br />Subject: Re: Twentymile Coal - Use of Flocculant to Settle Coal Fines Prior to Discharge to Fish <br />Creek <br />Attachments: AMERFLOC 490_2009-03-28_EN 203515.pdf <br />Jerry, <br />Forgot the MSDS attachment... here it is. <br />Sorry, <br />Aquatic Biologist <br />Colorado parks and Wildlife <br />925 Weiss Dr. <br />Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 <br />office: 970-871-2868; cell: 970-846-9381 <br />e-mail: hill.atkinson(a),state.co.us <br />On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Atkinson - DNR, Bill <bill.atl:insoi�la state,co.0 _> wrote: <br />Jerry, - — - -- <br />First off, we (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) appreciate the consideration and opportunity to comment on this <br />issue. Your timing for us is less than ideal to review these processes, which I (we) are not very familiar with, <br />given everybody's workload and end -of -fiscal year obligations. This basin is one that we care about and we do <br />appreciate your ongoing efforts to keep us in the loop. <br />While the MSDS sheet you provided conveys 'little risk' to the aquatic environment, there are other MSDS <br />sheets (attached) which state that Amerifloc 490 posses potential risks to aquatic environments... "harmful to <br />aquatic organisms, may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment". So, while we do have <br />some concern, we do feel that you will exercise proper measures to minimize any negative impacts to the <br />aquatic environment. <br />Given that, and as you state, " the proposed feed rate of 20 mg/1 will be consumed in the reaction with <br />suspended solids, with little or no residual in the discharge to the stream ...... and that you are 'confident that you <br />can meet your permit effluent limits (which include WET testing) while using this treatment method', and that <br />we are assuming that any biological and/or chemical monitoring will catch any issues associated with this, we <br />are ok with you moving forward with this new treatment approach. <br />I invite any others to provide comments to Jerry regarding this issue. I am sending this e-mail as conditional <br />approval, but please understand that Sherm or Jim/Steve may insist that a signed letter is necessary. If so, they <br />will work to provide you said letter. <br />