Laserfiche WebLink
Daniel I. Hernandez, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Response to Comments on Drak Permit, Colowyo Coal Company, L. P. <br />CDPS No. CO-0(k15161 (pending). Moffat County <br />Page 4. <br />We have pointed out in previous correspondence to the permittee that the primary goal is minimize the <br />amount of sediment entering streams. They have stated to us verbally several times that this is their goal <br />also. <br />12. This scenario would be dependent upon whether the permittee in fact only has manual dewatering <br />capability. If the pond would automatically dewatet but [he permittee chose to manually dewater instead of <br />allowing the automatic system to work, [hen the discharge must meet primary limitations. If the pond has <br />no approved automatic dewatering capability, [hen manual dewatering would be the only option and the <br />discharge would be eligible for alternate limitations (but not automatically exempt from primary <br />limitations). Factors such as described in l 1. above would apply. When all ponds have automatic <br />dewatering devices, this should be simplified greatly. As stated in 6. preceding, the permittee understands <br />[hat manual discharges will no longer be eligible for exemptions. <br />13. For this scenario, primary limitations do apply <br />14. Yes, this discharge would be eligible for relief from primary limitations <br />15. This discharge, at the time of sampling, would also be eligible for relief from primary limitations. Any <br />discharge lasting after 48 hours after inflow has stopped must meet primary limitations. <br />These interpretations are based on alternate limitation burden of proof language developed by the Division <br />several years ago. The language has been included in several coal mining CDPS permits including the <br />previous and current CDPS General Permit For Coal Mining Facilities. It is presently being modified to add <br />more detail regarding specific forms of proof required for receiving relief. The final language will be offered <br />for public comment in the revised draft permit. <br />B. Rationale <br />1. The referenced section of the rationale is being revised to reflect the new pond discharge configurations. <br />2. This comment was addressed in 8. preceding. <br />C. Colowvo's Comment Letter <br />1. Comment noted. <br />2. Colowyo has stated to us that a certain portion of surface runoff flows across upper portions of pits then <br />gravity-flows out again. They wanted this to be considered surface runoff. We agree. They concurred <br />that water that necessitated pumping to remove from the pit should be addressed differently. <br />3. We believe Colowyo objected to the characterization of pit water as "process water" because, as mentioned <br />in 2. above, they feel that not all water that enters a pit is the same. <br />