HYDRO21363 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

prior October 3, 1994 letter. The WQCD deferred to the Memorandum of Understanding between the CDMG and the WQCD, and allowed the CDMG to pursue Notices of Violation (NOV) for both water quality exceedances and failure to minimize or maintain the hydrologic balance. Importantly, CDMG's NOVs did not challenge Colowyo's entitlement to the Alternate Limitations for manual headgate dischazges. The WQCD did not issue any violations for the monitoring data presented in the quarterly Dischazge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted from January, 1995 through June 1997 for Outfalls 001, 002, 003, 004, 006, 007, 008, and O l0, nor did it issue any violations for Colowyo's manual dischazges. Absent any NOVs, WQCD cannot now refer to such monitoring data as permit violations. Colowyo has had no formal opportunity to disprove or challenge WQCD's assertions. In fact, as discussed above, Colowyo has, on a number of occasions, provided detailed information on these matters. At no time, throughout these discussions in 1996, did WQCD respond to Colowyo's detailed information or ever state that it considered these activities to be permit violations. WQCD cannot no~v, 18 months later, use Colowyo's permit Rationale as the first and only forum in which it categorizes the activities exhaustively discussed by all concerned parties in 19'.6, and to which WQCD failed to respond at the appropriate time. W(~CD's use of the permit Rationale as the forum in which to categorize Colowyo's activities a§ permit violations, deprives Colowyo of any formal opportunity to charllenge the permit violation assertions by WQCD. Also, the statements in the Rationale aze general and vague, and do not provide any detail as to which events, in l~articulaz, WQCD considers true permit violations. Such vague statements, again, deprive Colowyo of any meaningful opportunity to challenge WQCD's assertions. It is fundamentally unfair for WQCD to raise such issues in a public document by labeling Colowyo a permit violator without any of the due process protections that would be afforded to Colowyo had WQCD pursued NOVs in 1996. Moreover, as the record cleazly establishes, Colowyo is entitled to the Alternate Limitations for manual dischazges, provided such dischazges aze necessary to maintain pond volume. Not only did WQCD error when it changed the language in the. coal mining General Permit No. COG-850017 without any notice in the draft permit that it was making such a change, but Colowyo requested and obtained a clarification to this language from WQCD allowing it to use the Alternate Lunitations for manual dischazges when such dischazges were necessary to maintain pond capacity.10 10Letter to WQCD from D. Kennedy, dated Mazch 22, 1996; letter to Colowyo from WQCD, dated October 3, 1994 and; letter to Colowyo from WQCD, dated May l4, 1996. is