Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1 3I J Sherman 51 ,Room ? 15 <br />Denver, Colorado HO?0J <br />Phone' U0J1 R66 3567 <br />FA%.lill.q Hit-8106 <br />~I~~~ <br />MEMO DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />TO: Mike long RESOURCES <br />1 <br />FROM: Sandy Brown h,,, ~~~~~~•~ <br />r.,,.,•,n,~, <br />DATE: June 7, 1996 <br />i.~~~~~ . ,. I ~ ~r hne.,a <br />RE: Recommendation to Vacate NOV C-96-O11 and combine it with C-96-W6~.,,,,~„•~r~~~•,~n~ <br />NOV C-96-011 was issued to Colowyo Coal Company by Erica Crosby May 7, 1996. Il'149~"""""' <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, ]996 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 w•as 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 />