HYDRO24736 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF COLVI~UU DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Dc•pdrlmenl of Natural Resources 131 1 Sherman 51., Room ?1 5 ~ Dcnvcr, Colorarin 8U?03 I~~~ Phone' 130}1 Nh6~35h7 FAx:I}Illl K3?-HIUh DEPARTMEIY7' OF NATURAL RESOURCES February 27 1998 RoY "°mer , Governor lames 5. lochhead Jon C. Kubic E.ecwl~e D.recror Colorado De artment of Public Health and Environment Michael 8. Long p Division Dveaor WQCD-PE-B2 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80222 Re: Comments on Draft Individual Industrial Permit No. CO-0045161, Colowyo Coal Company, L.P., Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Permit No. C-81-019 Dear Mr. Kubic: The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) has received the Colorado Water Quality Control Division's (WQCD) February 20, 1998 response to our January l2, ]998 comments to WQCD regarding Colowyo Coal Company's (Colowyo) application for an individual industrial permit. We appreciated WQCD responding to our comments. We have the following comments. A. Draft CDPS Permit No. CO-0045161 In our January 12, 1998 letter, we questioned whether whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing should be required for outfalls from ponds that regularly receive surface runoff from areas at which coal is stockpiled and/or loaded. In the case of the Colowyo mine, these ponds would be Outfalls 003, 005, and 006. We asked this as WQCD is proposing WET testing for water pumped from coal production pits because "the WQCD has found that discharges of water in coal production pits that has had reasonable time to contact with the coal seam (and similar sources from coal mines at similar sites) may have effluent toxicity" (Rationale, page 11, second paragraph). Our thought was that since the rationale for WET testing pit pumped water was that WQCD had found that water that had been in contact with a coal seam had the potential for eft7uent toxicity, it would seem that snowmelt or rainfall that came into contact with a coal stockpile might have the same potential for effuent toxicity. It appears that WQCD did not elect to respond to our comment. We would still appreciate a response, if possible.