My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HYDRO31525
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Hydrology
>
HYDRO31525
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:55:12 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:52:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Hydrology
Doc Date
10/16/1995
Doc Name
MIDTERM REVIEW FN C-81-041
From
POWDERHORN COAL CO
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
NPDES
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH -Water Quality Conrro/ Division <br />Rnrionale -Page ll Permit No. COR-040000 <br />/X. Pi/BLIC NOTICE CHANGES <br />A public meeting was held on August S, 1992, at the Glendale Community Cemer, to rereive public comment an the <br />proposed draft general permit for stormwater discharges from metal mining operations. Approximately 40 people <br />anendul. In addition, 5 letters of rommtnt wen naiwd by the Division during the 60 day public comment period. <br />A. Overlaoaine Jurisdiction and the Role of the CDMG <br />The Division specifically asked for public comment on what role the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />(GONG) (formerly Mined Land Reclamation Division) of the Depamnem ojNatural Rrsourcrs should play in the <br />stormwater permitting program. <br />Commemers arpressed conctrrt offer the ptnspect ojdual permitting sinre the CDMG has an existing role in <br />regulating mining activities. It was fe4 CDMG has the appropriate background and technical expertise to address <br />implemtmation and regulation of stormwater control requirements at mining operations. Commenters noted that <br />much if not all of the information rcquirod in a Stormwater Mawgemem Plan is already required in CDMG <br />Reclamation Plans. Concern was also express that this dual permitting or permit review rould lead ro <br />jurisdictional conflict and confusion, wasted time, and increased expense. <br />In response the Division wishes to clanfy that section 402(p)(2J(B) of the Clean Water Act stipulates that <br />stormwattr disdwrget associatrd with industrial activity must be authorized by an NPDES permit. By federal <br />regulation, mining operations an included in the definition of 'industrial activity' and therefore need to meet the <br />requiremems of sections 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Acs. Complianre with other state requirements does not <br />waive the requiremem to obtain an NPDES permit. <br />The Clean Water Act includes procedures for delegating administration of the NPDES program from EPA to the <br />States for rontrol of polbuanu dudiarged imo their waters. Under the Clean Water Aet, there are no provisions <br />for the Slate delegated authority to further delegate the permitting process to another agency. Delegation of the <br />permitting authority to the CDMG would require federal action. <br />The Division agnv that in quite a few casts, stormwater management controls an included in the reclamation <br />plan required by COMG. The Division also agrees that CDMG has a good background and technical expertise as <br />well as a field inspection staff. Tau Division atd the CDMG arc working on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) <br />to ensure that the trvv agencies work togaher in permitting, inspection and enforremem procrsses, and to minimize <br />the duplication. The agencies intnd to allow input from the regulated community regarding the content and <br />development of the MOA. <br />B. Coveraee for Inactive Mininr Ooerations <br />Tare Division sperificolly asked for public comment on the distinction between 'inactiHe' and 'historically inactive' <br />mining operations. Historically inactive mining operations were defined as mining sites that reared operation prior <br />to July 1, 1973. This is the effective date of the Colorado Open Mining Land Reclanurtian Act. Inactive mining <br />operations wen defined as situ that ceased operation after July 1, 1973. Coverage was not provided for <br />historically inactive mining operations under the draft general permit. <br />Most commemtrs felt that coverage for both types of inactive mints was inappropriate under this general permit. <br />Some commenters jell strongly that the distinction based on the July 1, 1973 dart war imppropriate and did not <br />reflect the true rtormwater polbrtion potential Mosr commemers indicated that inactive mining operations should <br />have reduced permit obligations. <br />In response, the Division has eliminated the distinction between inactive and historically inactive mining <br />operations, and nducrd the pantie obligations for all inactive mining operations. The Division wishes to clarify <br />that mints that have temporarily txastd mining and an in 'temporary cessation' status with the CDMG, are <br />LactiHe' mines for the purpose of this permit. The Division also wishes to cote that we reserve the right to require <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.