GENERAL39254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~, ~~ :. Colowyo's concern with this permit requirement can be summarized by the following points: • This requirement unfairly penalizes those operators that have manually operated headgates on sedimentation ponds. Conversely, operators with automatic discharge devices would be afforded the opportunity to meet the alternate limitations simply because of a different pond design. • Since we have a manual dewatering system, if we were unable to meet the primary discharge limitations after a large storm event or snowmelt, we would be forced to allow water to be discharged via the emergency outlet. We question the logic of having a full pool of water in the pond discharging through an emergency outlet simply because we are prohibited from dewatering through a manual device. This would appear to defeat the purpose of the emergency outlet and pose a safety problem because we could not empty the pond in the desired manner. Conversely, if we operated the pond under the less onerous federal discharge standards we could simply discharge the pond and meet all applicable federal discharge standards. • During a large precipitation event or snowmelt, under current federal discharge standards and our previous CDPS discharge standards, we could safely dewater the pond while meeting all the discharge standards. This prompt dewatering of the pond also enables us to meet the additional DMG requirement to provide storage capacity for a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. The more onerous CDPS standards for meeting TSS rather than settleable solids simply because we have a manual headgate would require Colowyo to store water longer, thus jeopardizing our ability to meet other DMG pond storage requirements. • If, according to the MOU, DMG will enforce 40 CFR Part 434 standards and the WQCD will enforce the CDPS standards which set of regulations should the operators be expected to comply with? We believe it is inappropriate that Coal operators risk the potential of meeting full compliance with one set of standards while violating a different set of standards. This is especially disturbing if it is two different State agencies with overlapping jurisdictions who enforce the two different standards. • Colowyo is unaware of a demonstrated need in Colorado to adopt discharge standards for coal mines that are more onerous than the counterpart federal standards. We believe this is especially applicable to those existing permittees having no history of a failure to meet discharge standards. Where is the need to toughen the standards in Colorado, especially with existing operators?