ENFORCE20332 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w ~I I I I~ I I~ ~ I~ ~~~~ II~ sss STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor ' Patti Shwayder, Acting Fxecutive Director Dedicated ro protecting and improving the health and environment o(the people o! Coorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. 5. Laboratory Building Denier, Colorado 802221530 4210 E. 11th Avenue Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 802203716 p03) 691-4700 Wamr Quality Control Division WQC0.PE-B2 (303Jt692-3500 FAX (303782-0390 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 Pwnpage Colowyo Coal Company LP CDPS No. COG-850017 Moffat County Dear Larry: Fe4 pF Cp s ~1876~ Colorado Department of Public Health and Envirotlmult R1=(" I~iVF!~ APR 2 2 ?99fi Division o! ,.,:.:•:~zis o ~eoiot;y 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 Mazch, 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. Cotnments in the preamble often refer to eastern mines which are classified as acid or ferruginous, however there aze 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. In regazd 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 similaz to another reference, "the alternate storm limits are designed to afford relief only when necessary, operators should endeavor to meet dry weather standazds whenever possible", is contained in the general permit's Burden of Proof Requirements section (Par[ I.B.I.d)). Comparable language is found in applicable individual permits for coal mining facilities as well.