Laserfiche WebLink
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1713 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80207 <br />Phone: (1071866.7567 <br />FAX: 13031872-8106 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />MEMO DEPARTMENT OI <br />I~IATURAI <br />TO: Mike Long <br />n RESOURCE. <br />FROM: Sandy Brow Roy Rumrr <br />DATE: June 7, 1996 c°~""" <br />RE: Recommendation to Vacate NOV C-96-O1 I and combine it with C-96-006 E»<:~~~ ~~ u~~~,~„,~ <br />Michael 7i. lrrrrr; <br />NOV C-96-0I 1 was issued to Colowyo Coal Company by Erica Crosby May 7, 1996. If'1~vif~ °i""" <br />issued for "Failure to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance. Failure to operate and <br />maintain facilities to treat water discharge from the disturbed area to meet effluent limits in <br />the mines' CPDS Permit." During Erica's March 20, 1996 inspection she collected a <br />discharge sample from the East Taylor Creek Pond and submitted it to CDH for analysis. <br />Results of the sample were not received by the DMG until April 25, 1996 demonstrating that <br />the water quality was not in compliance. This was over a month after the sample had been <br />submitted for analysis. In the meantime, Erica issued NOV C-96-006. <br />During the same March 20, 1996 inspection Erica observed pit water being pumped to the <br />East Taylor Creek Pond. The pit water was of very poor quality and she questioned whether <br />Colowyo had approval to pump pit water to the pond. She issued NOV C-96-006 for failure <br />to design and maintain the pond to include storage for pit water. Erica maintained that the <br />pond designs did not include additional storage volume for pit water. As supporting <br />documentation she presented the design considerations for the pond showing no baseflow. <br />Representatives from Colowyo disagreed. They said pit water would be pumped to the pond. <br />They submitted page 4.05-6 of their permit which states: <br />Pumping of pits due to collection of surface runoff is anticipated only on an extremely <br />rare occasion, is performed mainly for safety purposes, and will not effect the design <br />or function of the sedimentation ponds. <br />Water quality data was not available when Erica issued NOV C-96-006. Had the analysis <br />been completed, it would have been evidence supporting the fact that the pond was not <br />serving to treat the discharge to meet water quality standards. <br />The fact that the water quality was not in compliance demonstrates to me that the pumping of <br />pit water did effect the functioning of the sedimentation pond. I feel the water quality <br />analysis is an important piece of evidence to take into consideration when evaluating NOV C- <br />96-006. For this reason I recommend that NOV's C-96-006 and C-96-O1 l be combined. <br />cc. Erica Crosby <br />Larry Routten <br />