HYDRO29359 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~ . 111 lll1111111111lI1 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Acting Executive Director Uedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment o(the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Building Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 4270 E. 11th Avenue Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 (303) 691-4700 Water Quality Control Division WQCD-PE-62 (303)+692-3500 FAX (303)+7g2-0390 April 17, 1996 Larry P. Routten Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology' 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver. CO 80203 RE: Alternate Effluent Limits for Pit Ptunpage Colowyo Coal Company LP CDPS No, COG850017 Moffat County Dear Larry: OF' Cpl ~~' '~ N'~ ~ - - •~• X876 ~ Colorado Department of PubGcHealrh and Environment RF~~ivFD APR 2 z 1996 Division of i.~~n;rals 8 UeoiOUy We have received your April 1, 1996, letter and reviewed it and its attachment. We concur with your position on this subject. This letter explains our position relative to application of alternate limitations to the sample collected by Erica Crosby in March, 1996, and to pit pumpage in general. Your letter indicates that you do not believe that water pumped from a mine pit qualifies for alternate effluent limitations. You reference sections of 40 CFR 434, the Coal Mining Point Source Category Effluent Guidelines, and the preamble to the guidelines found in the Federal Register (50 FR 41305, October 9, 1985) to emphasize your point. Comments in the preamble often refer to eastern mines which are classified as acid or ferruginous, however there are relevant discussions that apply to areas such as Colorado. For example, the Division agrees that two sections of the preamble that you highlighted directly apply to Colorado coal mines and support our position. !n regard to pit pumpage, one section you highlighted which states that "the National Coal Association... agreed with EPA that pumping from pits, wherever located, could be controlled to the extent that alternate storm limitations would not be necessary" reinforces our determination that pit pumping does not qualify for the alternate limits. In fact, these interpretations have been used as a partial basis of our application of the alternate limitations. Language similar to another reference, "the alternate storm limits are designed to afford relief only when necessary, operators should endeavor to meet dry weather standards whenever possible", is contained in the general permit's Burden of Proof Requirements section (Part I.B.I.d)). Comparable language is found in applicable individual permits for coal mining facilities as well.