Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Roam 215 <br />Deaver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866 -3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832 -510 <br />INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Susan Burgmaier <br />ROM: Mike Boulay M5 <br />DATE: August 2 6, 2010 <br />SUBJECT: Seneca II Kline (PennitNo. C -1980 -005) <br />Permit Revision No. 2 (PIS --2 <br />COLORADO <br />D I V I S 10 N O F <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINING <br />SAFETY <br />Bill Ritter, )r. <br />Governor <br />James B. Martin <br />Executive Director <br />Loretta E. Pineda <br />Director <br />I have reviewed Seneca Coal Company's. SCC' PR-2 submittal. As requested, I specifically <br />reviewed the Hydrology Description and Monitoring Plan section. Some background information is <br />helpful in understanding the changes that are now being proposed for the Seneca H Mine. Back in <br />February 2010 the Division met with SCC and after lengthy discussion and review agreed to <br />substantial monitoring plan changes to the Yoast Mine and the H -W Mine. Seneca 11 Mine changes <br />were not proposed at that time in lien of the upcoming permit boundary change. New "long" and <br />Ccsh rt" parameter lists were developed and approved May 5, 2 010 for both surface and ground water <br />for east and II--W, TIC-47 and TR- 9, respectively. The normal frequencies and extended <br />parameter lists will be analyzed again one year prior to final bond release. Now that the permit <br />boundary change has been determined for Seneca If, SCC proposes to implement the saine lists <br />previously approved for Peabody Energy'9 Energy' adjacent Seneca II -W and Y a t Mines. There are no <br />changes to the groundwater point of compliance discussion in PR -2 which is correct. There were <br />two points of compliance for alluvial groundwater one on Grassy Creek and one on Fish Creel. <br />When the boundary was changed the Fish Creek point of compliance will reinain in place for Seneca <br />11. So it is important to rate Mere that the changes proposed to the groundwater monitoring <br />parameter lists for Seneca If are precisely the same changes that were previously approved with <br />east Kline TR-47 TIC-47 and II--W Mine TR- 9. I do think that some minor clarification ieati . t the revised <br />permit text in PR-2 is needed and I have discussed then changes with Dennis Jones of Peabody <br />Energy. I have the following two comments. <br />Office of Office of <br />Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction & Durango Active and Inactive lines <br />