REP38384

• Permit No: C1981033
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 3/30/1995
• Doc Name: 1992 1993 AND 1994 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT BEAR MINE
• From: DMG
• To: TONY WALDRON
• Annual Report Year: 1992
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1992, 1993, 1994 AHR Review
Bear Coal Company
March 30, 1995 (Revised)
Page 3
parameters were exceeded
2nd quarter 1993 and six
taken on April 5 exceede
Discharge Monitoring Repo:
any parameters. The oth~
Suspended Solids (TSS) st
40 mg/1; May 3, 80 mg/1).
indicated on the DMR for
requires the operator to
daily maximum for TSS.
discharged water provide
should be 31 mg/1 and tl
instead of 11 mq/1 ar
The pond also discharged during
amples were taken. The first sample
~d pH by 0.1, and is shown on the
-t (DMR). Two samples did not exceed
:r three samples exceeded the Total
~ndard (April 19, 40 mg/1; April 26,
However, these exceedances are not
the 2nd quarter. The NPDES permit
report the 3o-day average and the
According to the results of the
d in the AHR, the 30-day average
ie daily maximum should be 80 mg/1
d 20 mq/1 as reported by BCC,
respectively. The operator reported discharging 30,000
gallons on the DMR and the AHR states that 54,000 gallons was
discharged between March 29, and continued through April 1993.
So was 24,000 gallons discharged during the 1st quarter?
Also, the DMR reports the daily maximum at a lower flow than
the 30-day average, which is not possible. Please have the
operator respond to the above noted discrepancies. Depending
on BCC's response, this information may need to be reported to
the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment.
The pond did not discharge during 1994.
6. "nt" has been recorded for the water level of AA1 during 4th
quarter 1992. Please have the operator explain this notation.
7. pH and Conductivity data were not collected for any of the
springs, as required by the monitoring program. It appears
that the lab analysis were relied on for this data, and was
not included in the analysis. No lab analyses were provided
for G-26A in August or for G-26B in June and August. At a
minimum, field parameters, including temperature, should be
collected when flow measurements are obtained from May to
November. Please have the operator explain why this data was
not collected.
Ouality Analysis and Predictions
The operator states in the 1993 AHR that water quality in AA1 and
AA3 improved in comparison to previous years, with the exception of
conductivity. In 1994, the parameters remained consistent with the
data from 1993, with the exception of conductivity, which went up.
AA1 has not shown any significant degradation compared to AA3. I
believe the reason for the improvement in 1993 is due to the fact
that 1992-1993 had a high snowpack which yielded high runoff and