HYDRO28988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Murari P. Shrestha, Assistant Manager of Engineering Western Fuels-Utah, lnc. CO-0000213. Page 2. As stated above, we cannot eliminate WET requirements. However, in recognition of the good test history for outfall 001, we will require testing with only one species, ceriodaohnia sp. instead of both species. This should result in some financial savings while appropriately monitoring for toxicity. Ceriodaphnia sp. appears to be the more sensitive species. We cannot make any changes io the testing requirements for outfall 007 at this time since there is no WET data base for this outfall yet. As specified in the WET guidance document, we require a minimum of one year of data before we can consider reducing testing requirements. The Division consistently imposes more frequent monitoring on high volume continuous discharges than it does on low volume intermittent discharges. The frequencies specified in the draft renewal permit for outfalls 001 and 007 are appropriate considering the discharge volumes. Additionally, these discharges can easily have a significant impact on the receiving waters since they may constitute the majority of the flow in the stream. For these reasons, it is necessary to monitor them on a frequent basis. The monitoring frequency relates much more to the flow volume and its potential impact on the stream than it does to whether the area is actively mined or not. As we mentioned previously the cost of pH testing, oil & grease observation and flow measuring is relatively minor. These tests should be performed frequently to properly monitor operation of the ponds from which these discharges emanate and note any problems in a timely manner. In response to your concern that permit requirements changed in the draft renewal permit from the previous permit where site physical configurations and discharges had not changed, we reviewed the files in depth. The previous permit renewal and subsequent amendments 1 through 4 were drafted on the basis of information supplied by the permittce and other information in the files at the times. We relied on the permittce's information in most cases and did not feel the need to verify their accuracy through actual site inspections. From what you indicate, it appears that physical circumstances at the time permit amendments were requested may have been different in some cases from what was addressed in the permit. Part fl.A.l. of the permit, Chanee in Discharge, requires the permittce to timely notify the Division of any changes that do or may affect [he discharge (within two weeks). We do not know the reason why we were not notified although we recognize that when a new discharge begins it is not always possible [o completely characterize it. This roay have been the case for outfall 007. Also, we made assumptions on the basis of the information provided to us that were later proven to be incorrect. For example, when Peabody Coal Company requested elimination of all WET requirements [hey indicated that all outfalls (001-006) would consist only of post-mining surface runoff (January 29, 1992, letter that resulted in amendment 2). On the basis of Prabody's statements, we deleted WET requirements. Peabody did not indicate in their request [hat [he discharge from outfall 001 would be continuous and significant due [n spoils spring flow, If they had we would not have granted [heir request. And when WFC requested addition of outfall 007 (your May 4, 1992, letter that resulted in amendment 3) you indicated that the discharge would result entirely from surface runoff. Your September I5, 1992, draft permit comment letter noted for the first time that in addition to surface runoff the discharge would include water that entered the mining area and subsequently became process water. Nowhere was it indicated to us that these two sources would be a minority of the total flow and that a spoils spring flow would comprise the majority of the Flow and cause it to become continuous. When we reviewed your March, 1994, renewal application and the recent Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) we became aware that these spoils springs existed and occurred as large continuous flows. Accordingly, appropriate effluent limitations and monitoring requirements different from the previous conditions ware imposed. The reason that permit conditions changed is that information supplied to us had changed from that in our custody when previous permit actions occurred. Overall, the conditions in the renewal permit should have been in the permit long ago.