Laserfiche WebLink
Comment 6. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> No response necessary. <br /> Surface Water Review of 1986 Annual Hydrology Report (John Doerfer memo, <br /> January 28, 1987) <br /> Comment 1. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> After reviewing the text supplied to the Division (page 10 of the 1986 <br /> AHR) regarding equipment certification, Peabody realized that the <br /> discussion was somewhat misleading. The conductivity meter used <br /> periodically at Nucla is indeed the same unit used at Seneca II . <br /> Peabody has revised portions of text on page 10 of the 1986 AHR for <br /> clarification. <br /> Comment 2. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> Peabody has addressed the discrepancies between the approved monitoring <br /> program and that actually performed before 1986, and the discussion on <br /> missing silver and chromium analyses by replying to comments included in <br /> the Memo to Mr. O'Connor from Mr. Doerfer (Surface Water Adequacy <br /> Review, Permit Revision No. 1, Nucla Strip Mine) on January 28, 1987. <br /> Peabody's responses to the two comments regarding the above-mentioned <br /> issues can be found on pages 8 and 9 of this package. <br /> Comment 3. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> Peabody regrets the fact that the Division received copies of the 1986 <br /> AHR that contained nonreadable copies of Page 61. As a result of minor <br /> text revisions made in the 1986 Nucla AHR, page numbers have been <br /> slightly altered in the original document. The material that was <br /> originally presented on page 61 has been retyped and can be found on <br /> inserted pages 59 and 62. <br /> 10 <br />