HYDRO28884 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kimberley A. Wolf. Draft Permit Comments Colowyo Coal Co - Colowyo Coal Mine. CDPS CO-0045161 Page 4. We thank you for your descriptions of the soon-to-be configuration of yeur ponds. As we understand this, they will configured in a manner quite similar to the majority of the coal mining facilities in the state. We welcome this change since it will make for more uniform, consistent and fair application of the state and federal petmit regulations.. We offer these comments related to your discussion of the Alternate Limitations Burden of Proof Requirements. The author of the EPA regulations, found under 40 CFR 434, titled Coal Mining Point Source Effluent Guidelines, stated to me several years ago that these altetitate limitations are only intended to be used when necessary, that permittees should strive to meet the primary limitations and that when all reasonable attempts to do so are inadequate, the permittee should have the relief available. The regulation itself is somewhat vague in [his area and the summary of basis accompanying the promulgation of the fmal rule of the regulation in 1985 did not provide much elaboration that was applicable to mines located in this region. That is why we sought out the source several years ago. Since my discussions with the author, we have worked to construct permit language that accomplished this goal. As you are aware, this is not a simple task. Conditions from one site to another are highly variable and conditions within a single site also may vary from one storm event to the next and from one pond system to [he next. This is why it is impossible to craft specific, precise language that completely covers every situation. We consttuct permit language with the goal that it can be applied to all facilities fairly. The Division Industrial Compliance Assurance Officer (ICAO) has the responsibility of requesting whatever data he or she determines necessary to make a determination of whether relief is applicable on a case-by-case basis. One primary determination the ICAO must make is: did the permittee make every reasonable effort to comply with the primary lirititations before requesting an exemption. Associated with this is proper pond and collection system operation and maintenance. If a permittee is not making every attempt [o properly operate and maintain the ponds and collection system, they are not making a reasonable attempt to meet the primary limitations. We acknowledge that CDMG does not require permittees to design ponds with the primary focus on TSS and total iron limitations, however we have found from coal permittee monitoring records that approved, properly constructed, operated and maintained treatment systems can meet TSS and total iron limitations under normal conditions. When extraordinary situations arise, we are willing to extend the appropriate relief upon satisfactory demonstration by the pet-mittee. Please remember that our agency is charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment, more specifically,. the protection of classified-uses of water- in waters of the state. We seek to meet this responsibility while not placing unnecessary burdens on permittees. Specific Comments A. Response to Draft CDPS Permit No. CO-0045161 I. The Division does not intend to require WET testing for surface runoff from coal stockpile areas at this time. The following is the same comment we made to Dan Hernandez, CDMG, on this subject: The Divisior has made the decision to exempt surface runoff discharges at this time from whole effluenC toxicity testing requirements irrespective of the source of the runoff. Our position is based on these factors: a. Icon is the primary constituent with the potential for toxicity in most coal mining facility surface runoff discharges. Iron is much less toxic than other metals -the toxicity level for aquatic life is much higher;