My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP29649
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP29649
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:00:06 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 5:24:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
9/2/2005
Doc Name
2004 Annual Hydrology Report Review Letter
From
DMG
To
Seneca Coal Company
Annual Report Year
2004
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
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.
/
3
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
Dennis Jones <br />Seneca Coal Company <br />Page 3 <br />September 2, 2005 <br />4. Page 8 of the AHR references CDOH, Reg. 41, Mazch 1999. The current Regulation 41 <br />should be referenced effective Mazch 22, 2005. Please also update Table 5 of the 2004 <br />AHR to show the current CDPHE Agricultural Standazds. <br />5. Page 13 should be updated to also include a discussion of the recent modification to the <br />Pond 004 principal spillway. The dischazge pipe was modified in July 2005 as a result of <br />TR-39 to an 8-inch straight pipe. If appropriate please revise the discussion in the first <br />paragraph of page 13. <br />6. With regazd to the spoil springs discussion and analysis some minor inconsistencies were <br />noted. On page 19, Spoil Spring l0A is said to have a decreasing TDS trend, whereas all <br />other spoils spring- trend analysis comparisons aze made to EC (electrical conductivity) <br />plots. In the Surface Water Summary presented on page 24 there is no mention of Spoil <br />Spring 7 displaying an increasing EC trend. Also on page 24 and 25, SCC indicates that <br />dischazges sometimes exceed water quality standazds for irrigation and aquatic life, but <br />no further discussion is provided. It is uncleaz whether these discharges refer to NPDES <br />outfalls or to spoils spring dischazges within the permit boundary. Further discussion is <br />warranted here to indicate if these dischazges result in off-site impacts or whether the <br />appazent exceedences are mitigated by dilution or other conditions. Please consider <br />revising and updating pages 19, 24, and 25 accordingly. <br />If you have any questions concerning the Division's review of the 2004 AHR, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />~; P.~- <br />Michael P. Boulay <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />c: Sandy Brown <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.