Laserfiche WebLink
O <br />hlr. Richard hlflls <br />Colorado Yampa Coal Company <br />.tune 4, 19811 <br />Page 2 <br />7. a) Same as 6. b) above <br />b) Reserved <br />O <br />8. a) Reserved <br />b) As we discussed, "Monitoring Frequency" is defined as sampling <br />frequency. Inspection of outfalls is left to your best <br />judgement. We realize that these outfalls discharge <br />infrequently, thus relatively few samples should be requiced. <br />c) A paragraph was added to Part D. of the Discussio^ section to <br />clarify this. Please feel free to call me if you have further <br />questions on this. _ <br />9. a) 1) Reserved <br />2) As discussed in B. b) above, existing monitoring <br />frequency is not excessive due to infrequent discharge. <br />b) 1) Incorporated - <br />2) We have no flexibility on the assignment of effluent <br />limitations. A clause will be added to the permit that <br />states that we will not consider silver results 0.0004 or <br />below to be violations. <br />3) A statistical analysts of metals data on file for this outfall <br />showed that the mean plus two standard deviations of [he data <br />showed a value greater than the limitations. For this reason <br />we caa ^ot reduce monitoring to twice monthly. We have <br />reduced monitoring to three times monthly. This should <br />reduce analysis costs a bit. <br />10. a) 1) Incorporated <br />2) Manganese limitations are not solely dependent on a water <br />supoly being downstream. The standards are set by the Water <br />Quality Control Commission and our division does not have the <br />authority to delete such standards. Should long-time <br />monitoring show that there no longer is a need for <br />limitations such as in the case of hex chromium and mercury, <br />we can then delete limitations. But, that is not the case <br />in this instance. <br />3) Please see 9. b) 3) above. In this case, there was not an <br />adequate data base, thus three/month is appropriate. <br />4) Please see 8. c) above <br />