My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HYDRO28993
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Hydrology
>
HYDRO28993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:48:03 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 10:12:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
Hydrology
Doc Date
1/24/1995
Doc Name
DEC 7 1994 MODIFICATIONS TO EDNA MINE CDPS PERMIT PITTSBURG & MIDWAY COAL MINING EDNA MINE CDPS CO-
From
WQCD
To
PITTSBURG & MIDWAY COAL MINING CO
Permit Index Doc Type
NPDES
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
View images
View plain text
Y"~ <br />Brian Gontarek <br />The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. <br />CDPS No. CO-0032638. Page 2. <br />I have contacted Kent Gorham at CDMG. Although he has not seen a formal proposal, their position <br />at this time is that irrigation would probably not be allowed due to the quality of the water. You may <br />have discussed this with Kent since your letter was written; however, if you haven't we suggest that <br />you do su soon. If the CDMG denies your request to use land application do you know what your <br />alternative will be? If so, please indicate [his in your response. <br />4) Please indicate on the map the point that you believe would he appropriate for sulfate monitoring. <br />Also summarize the review performed by you in determining [his point, indicating how it was <br />determined that there were no water supplies above the point. <br />If 1 understand your letter correctly, you are contused ahout the limitation that would apply to the <br />instream monitoring point. Water quality standards apply instream, not at a point source discharge. <br />This is the reason we use a mass halance to calculate water quality based eRluent limitations. <br />Therefore, the sulfate standard would apply at the instream monitoring point directly without any <br />dilution compensation. Thus, if [he ins[ream monitoring point were set up, a limitation of 250 mg/P <br />(equal to [he standard) would be imposed. This assures that the water at that point is in compliance <br />with the sulfate standard while allowing for whatever biological actions that may occur between the <br />discharge points and [he instream monitoring point to benefit you. A water quality based eftluent <br />limitation takes dilution into account so [hat the instream concentration is equal to or less than the <br />standard. <br />In regard to the issue of outfall 006 being a point source, the Division is firm on its position that this is a <br />point source and will proceed with litigation if necessary. It therefore remains an issue for the attorneys [o <br />resolve. <br />Please contact me at (303)+692-3605 if you have questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />~t <br />Jon C. Kubic <br />Engineering Technician <br />Permits and Enforcement Section <br />WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION <br />ze: Kathleen Kalamen, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD <br />Jim Chubrilo, Field Support Section, WQCD <br />Knren Kishbeugh, Attorney G<neral Office (w/copy of PRcA1's 1'_'/7 later) <br />Kent Gorham, CO Division of Minerals & Geology. Coal Section <br />Pennils Section, EPA <br />Local Health DepaRmcnt <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.