Laserfiche WebLink
CCVMENT: <br />~~ 8. The discussion of base-flow at NPDES 004 on Page 7-179 is somewhat <br />vague. It is not clear from this discussion if the base flow <br />referred to represents the contribution from the spoil springs, <br />from the material in which the pond is incised, or if it is a term <br />being applied to the average outfall from Point 004. <br />RESPONSE: <br />The base flow at NPDES 004 on Page 7-179 refers to the mean daily flow <br />discharge from the NPDES 004 pond discharge point during those months of <br />the year (generally August through February), when the overland, surface <br />water flow component is minimal and the subsurface, ground water flow <br />component is maximal. The first paragraph of Page 7-205 of Tab 7 has <br />been revised to reflect this clarification. <br />COh1MENT: <br />9. It is not clear from the discussion on Page 7-180 if Peabody is <br />proposing to monitor only TDS rather than monitor sulfate and other <br />water quality parameters. The Division will not approve such a <br />proposal at this time. <br />RESPONSE: <br />' On Page 7-180, Peabody Coal Company has not proposed to monitor only TDS <br />rather than monitor sulfate and other ~•~ater quality parameters. In the <br />discussion on this page, PCC intended only to demonstrate the <br />relationship between TDS and sulfate concentrations. The monitoring <br />sites and frequencies at which TDS, sulfate and other parameters are <br />monitored can be found in the text portion of Tab 7, Section VII A.2 and <br />in Tables 7-46 to 7-48. <br />COMMENT: <br />10. Page 7-229 or" the PP.R response indicates that monitoring of well <br />GW-S45 P1 will be discontinued. Peabody should note that the <br />Division has not approved a revision to drop this well from the <br />• monitoring program. The Division believes more detailed analyses <br />of the data from this well is warranted prior to deleting the <br />19 <br />