HYDRO28070

• Permit No: C1981008
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 9/9/1994
• Doc Name: PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS WESTERN FUELS LLC NEW HORIZON CDPS NO CO-0000213
• From: CDOH
• To: WESTERN FUELS UTAH INC
• Permit Index Doc Type: NPDES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~II ~I~I~~~I~~~~~ ~II
999
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
Patricia A. Nolan, MD, MPH, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment olNe people o(Cobrado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, Colorado 802 2 2-1 5 30
Phone [phone]
September 9, 1994
laboratory Building
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 8(1220-3716
[phone]
Murari P. Shrestha
Assistant Manager of Engineering
Western Fuels-Utah. Inc.
405 Urban St., Suite 305
Lakewood, CO 80228
RE: Public Notice Comments
Western Fuels-CO, LLC -New Horizon Mine
CDPS No. CO-0000213
Montrose County
Dear Mr. Shrestha:
pF' COQ
a~' 9~
Nc
~ rBr6 ~
Colorado Deparunent
of Public Health
and Environment
We have reviewed the comments in your August 24, 1994, letter regarding the draft renewal permit for the New
Horizon Mine.
1) We have reviewed your comment that the low flows for Tuttle Draw and Calamity Draw are not zero. As
I mentioned in our telephone conversation, we rely on the accuracy of maps when they indicate that a stream
flow is intermittent. The location map supplied by Western Fuels with your renewal application (Figure 1
in the permit) shows both streams as intermittent. Judy Bruch of our office inspected the site on May 3, 1989
and noted in her inspection report that Tuttle Dtaw was not flowing.
When flow data are available, we utilize a database covering ten years or more in calculating lE3 (one-day
in three year) and 30E3(30-day in three year) low flows. Ms. Bruch's observation is well within a ten year
period. However, to resolve the question we are forwarding a copy of your flow record table to the
Division's Standards Unit, which calculates low flows. We will notify you of their decision. The final permit
will be held up pending resolution of this question.
2) After our phone conversation, I researched the file regarding outfall 001. Peabody Coal's January 29, 1992,
letter that requested permit amendment number 2 clearly stated that dischazge from this outfall was solely
surface runoff. That was the basis for our deletion of WET and other process water requirements. Your
renewal application states that outfall 001 is continuous and includes spoils spring flow. The DMR review
for calendar year 1993, summarized in Table V-1, shows that outfall 001 had a significant continuous flow.
On the basis of this substantially different information, the limitations and monitoring requirements in the draft
renewal permit are appropriate. We impose WEI' requirements where toxicity is known or suspected. I could
find no demonstration that this outfall would not be toxic to aquatic life. If you want to end WET requirnlents
for this outfall, you will need to monitor for a period of one year, minimum, and demonstrate that this outfall
is no[ toxic to aquatic life, as described in the CO Water Quality Control Division Biomonitorine Guidance
Document.
For outfall 1107, the amendment number 3 to the previous permit based ifs limitations on Wes[em Fuel's
statements that the discharge consisted solely of surface runoff (see the first paragraph of section III. on page
l of that amendment). However, your renewal application states that Ute sources to this outfall are mine water
and surface runoff. On this basis, WET requirements apply. This is consistent with all other coal mining
discharge permits (see Western Fuels-Utah, Inc. Deserado Mine permit).