Laserfiche WebLink
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Cantral Division <br />Rnrionn(e -Page 13. Permit No. CO-0038024 <br />A0508 Materials Contairunent Plan -Update <br />05899 Stormwater Management Plan Submittal <br />and Implementation <br />I.E.1. 90 days after effective date <br />I.E.2.d)ii) .May 31, 1994 <br />A7199 Stormwater Management Plan I.E.2)g) First Report is due <br />Annual Reyoru February IS. 1995 <br />Jon C Subic <br />November 29, 1993 <br />VII. PUBLIC NOTICE COAfMENTs <br />The permittee commented: <br />Outfall 027, previously authorized and couinued in this renewal, has not been rnnstructed and wiR not be <br />constructed The perntittee requesu elirttiruttion of this outfall from the pmnit. The outfaG will be dropped <br />The permittee requested approval of a chemical, United 657 Zyme-Flow. The Division reviewed the Material <br />Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and rclatcd data. The summary of this review has been added to section lV.A.3. of this <br />rationale. <br />The perntittee had comments regarding whole efJlttent toxicity (WET) testing requiranents. The requirements in <br />this permit arc standard requiremenu applied under existing Division policy. Four outfalls -004, 023, 024 and <br />026 -are subject to WET. Outfalls 004 and 026 are a considerable distance from the White River and outfalls <br />023 and 024 are each at least 1 /2 milt from the White River, thus, it is appropriate to use the low flow of Zero for <br />the immediate receiving waters for these jour outfalls in determining the instream waste concentration. <br />The permittee requested that areas under CO Division ojMinerals and Geology jurisdiction be eliminated from <br />storntwnter requirements. The Division has no authority to exempt such areas. All areas must 6e controlled <br />through a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMPJ unless already regulated through effluent limitations. <br />The permittee questioned the change in reporting frequency from quarterly to monthly. The facility has multiple <br />discharge points, some with sign flcant flow volumes. Therefore, to 6e consistent with other similar facilities, this <br />change in reporting is necessary. <br />Other comments did not result in changes to the permit. These will also be clamed via lever to the permittee. <br />Jon C. Kubic <br />February 16, 1994 <br />VIII. REFERENCES <br />Colorado Dept. of Health, Water Quality Control Commission. Basic Standards and Methodoloeies for Surface <br />Water (3.1.0). Denver: CDH, as revised 10/17/91. <br />B. Colorado Dept. ojHcalrh, Water Quality Control Commission. Reeulations for EfRuent Limitations (10.1.0). <br />Denver: CDH, as revised 12/14/89. <br />C. Colorado Dept. of Health, Water Quality Control Commission. Reeulations (or the State Discharee Permit S~~stem <br />(6.1.0). Denver: CDH, as revised 2/2/93. <br />D. U. S. Government, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal <br />Reeulations (Part 434). Washington: 1990. <br />