Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />c~~us <br />i:mpire Corporation <br />April 11, 1994 <br />Janet H. Binns <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Dear Ms. Binns; <br />P.o. eax se <br />Craig, Colorado 87626 <br />303-824-8246 <br />RECEIVED <br />APR 1 ~ 994 <br /> <br />r~rriiriir«rr~ir~i <br />999 <br />The following is a brief summary of CEC's comments regarding the referenced draft <br />findings document. As previously discussed, most of the comments are minor in nature, <br />and simply deal with clarification items. Items are denoted by page number, heading, and <br />paragraph (where applicable) based upon location in the draft findings document. <br />1) Page 15, Probable Hydrologic Consequences, second paragraph. <br />The third sentence states that mining is progressing updip away from the <br />Yampa and Williams Fork. As discussed, mining progression is downdip <br />toward these areas. <br />2) Page 29, Truck Scales. As discussed, we believe that this is a typographic <br />error, and should read 'Track Scales". <br />3) Page 30, mid-page. As discussed, the statement concerning the annual <br />monitoring of the "A" list parameters needs to be clarified. <br />4) Page 31, parameter listing. As discussed, our records indicate that WET <br />testing is not required at this time, as the CDOH NPDES permit adding <br />these parameters is currently still in the renewal process and has not yet <br />become effective. As noted in our conversation, a number of parameters <br />and frequencies will be modified upon approval of the NPDES permit <br />renewal, but the listing in the findings document is accurate at this time <br />with the exception of the WET testing. <br />