My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-03-19_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2013-03-19_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:18:41 PM
Creation date
3/25/2013 8:38:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
3/19/2013
Doc Name
3rd Adequacy Letter Response (Hand Delivered)
From
Colowyo Coal Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR95
Email Name
RDZ
DIH
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.
/
6
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
COAL <br />COMPANY �o� <br />•A * -pLE. VEk0DDC '0% <br />The Prospect Drainage is unique in that over the past 30 years it has been <br />subjected to two very short duration, extremely intense localized storm events that <br />did not meet the criteria for a 10 year 24 -hour storm event as defined by the <br />SEDCAD program. These events were responsible for offsite impacts from runoff <br />generated from the areas reporting to Prospect Pond. <br />Other drainage basins at Colowyo Mine have been subjected to similar or <br />potentially even more intense short duration storm events in the past and have <br />adequately managed the subsequent runoff without off -site impacts. <br />Ordinarily, a change in a hydrologic model (say between two different <br />watersheds) would be justified by physical differences on the ground, such as <br />differences in soil types or vegetation, or by new information on the <br />relationship between the inputs and outputs of the model. This second <br />justification could be rainfall and runoff data that allows the modeler to <br />calibrate his/her model. The Division understands that Colowyo's proposal <br />to change the model is not based on such physical factors or data. It is, <br />rather, based on the relative risks of pond failure between Prospect and <br />other watersheds. The risk associated with Prospect Pond failure is much <br />greater than other ponds (in terms of public safety) due to the proximity of <br />Prospect Pond to State Highway 13. Please confirm if this understanding is <br />correct or incorrect. If correct, this is a point worth discussing. <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />Colowyo agrees with the Division, that in the event Prospect Pond should fail in <br />the future, the relative risk to the public would be greater due primarily to it's <br />proximity to State Highway 13. <br />The noted justification for NOV CV- 2008 -04 referred to the failure of the <br />structures to properly treat and pass the 10 year 24 -hour event, as the total <br />rainfall received from that storm event was not greater than the 1.8 inches in a 24 <br />hour period that Colowyo utilizes for modeling purposes to define a 10 year 24- <br />hour event. Colowyo demonstrated during the NOV assessment conference held <br />between the Division and Colowyo, that the intensity of the storm event generated <br />a volume of runoff that exceeded the design capacities for Prospect Pond and it's <br />associated structures. In order to approve TR -73, the Division insisted that the <br />curve numbers be raised based on the pre -mine designation of a portion of <br />Colowyo's surface as Class C soils. This led to the utilization of the curve <br />numbers ultimately incorporated into the TR -73 package, not actual on the <br />ground conditions. <br />A mining property of Western Fuels - Colorado, A Limited Liability Company <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.