Laserfiche WebLink
~ CHIMNEY ROCK COAL <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />105 East Kiowa, Suite 200 • Colorado Springs. Colorado • 80903 • (303J 475-7005 <br />February 3, 1982 <br />t9r. Mike Long <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 423 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Pit Water Treatment <br />Dear Mile: <br /> <br />! ~ ~ ~:~ ^ 182 <br />n~,nler ~nr•!:; rr_c:.~,rr; TiCN <br />CC~0 ~e,71 fi: r}:iiGi3i IlESUllif.(,'^• <br />It is unfortunate that the Division was unable to meet with <br />us during the week of February 1, 1982.. In lieu thereof, <br />this letter will appraise the Division of the issues relative <br />to pit caater treatment at Chimney Rock Coal. <br />As you may recall from our recent telephone conversation, the <br />Colorado Department of Health, 6later Quality Control Division <br />is not going to act on our [4PDE5 permit amendment to <br />discharge pit water until we reach an agreement with the <br />Division as to the manner in which the water ~oill be <br />contained for treatment. <br />We propose to construct an additional retention structure to <br />the west of the current sediment pond (002). At this point, <br />it may be some premature to discuss a specific location and <br />size of an additional treatment facility. We are in the <br />process of determining the amount of ground water that will <br />require treatment. Upon that determination, we will have a <br />realistic estimate of the pond cZp.~r_ity that will be required <br />to treat the water. <br />From the environmental standpoint, it is much more desirable <br />to treat pit water separately from runoff. If the two are <br />retained in the same structure, the amount of ~•iater that must <br />be treated may be increased. Dilution may occur, however, <br />and effluent limitations may not be met. Secondly, it does <br />not make logical sense to mix pit water. of poor quality with <br />