My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-12-02_PERMIT FILE - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2005-12-02_PERMIT FILE - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2020 5:18:48 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 1:50:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/2/2005
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 07 Item 02 CDPS Permit, SMP, SPCC Plan
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.
/
131
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 PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT -Water Quality Contro! Division <br />Rationale -Page 9 Permit No. COR-040000 <br />• VI. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT (cont.) <br />C. Annual Fee <br />All permittees are required to pay the annual permit administration fee, as described in the Colorado Water Quality <br />Contro! Act. (See Part II.B.10 of the permit.) As of February, 1996, the fee is $300 per year for active mines that <br />are !0 acres or greater, $100 per year for active mines that are less than 10 acres, and $50 per year for inactive <br />mines. These fees are subject to legislative change. - <br />H. Termination of Permit Certification <br />When a site has been reclaimed in accordance with the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (CDMG) <br />requirements and the sire has been released from State reclamation requiremems, the operator of the facility may <br />request termination. The requiremems for termination are described in Part I.F of the permit. <br />/n the case where the site has no CDMG permit, certification under this permit may be terminated once raw <br />material, intermcdiate products, byproducts, finished products or wane products have been removed or isolated <br />from stormwater and the si[e has been stabilized (with little evidence of soil erosion or other runoff problem) and <br />revegetated. Specific criteria are listed in Part I.F. of the permit. <br />Continued coverage may be required after reclamation or remediation is complete if the Division has shown or has <br />reason to suspect that the stormwater discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard. <br />I. Daration of Permit <br />• The genera[ permit shall not exceed five years in duration. In this case the expiration date is set for September 30, <br />2001. The permittee's authority to discharge under this permit is approved until the expiration date of the general <br />permit. Any permittee desiring continued coverage under the general permit must apply for recertification under <br />the genera! permit at least 90 days prior to its expiration date. <br />Sarah Johnson <br />February 26, 1996 <br />VII. CHANGES AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE <br />A. Chanees made by the Division <br />A few minor changes were made ro the permit and rationale in response to imernal Division review and comment to <br />improve program consistency and clarity. Other minor changes (typographical, etc.) were also made. <br />B. Resoonse to Public Commcnts <br />Thirteen letters were received during the public comment period for these permits. Many of the comments were <br />similar in nature and bout been addressed as groups below. <br />I. Voluntary third party mine-waste cleanup initiatives. <br />One group of commentary objected that the draft permit does not accommodate a voluntary watershed <br />rernediation approach. In general, nc~y fck that as curremly written, the permit severely limits the possibility <br />• of voluntary cleanup initiatives. They suggested that perhaps a separate general permit would be more <br />appropriate, or ar least the permit should clearly differentiate and separate the requirements and <br />responsibilities of third parry groups. Specificafly, they noted that voluntary groups are nor legal entities <br />which can hold permits. Further, the permit does not accommodate a watershed approach but rather <br />prescribes asste-by-site treatment. They proposed that the permit should provide liability protection for third <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.