PERMFILE131397

• Permit No: C1981018A
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/20/2004
• Doc Name: Water Discharge Permit
• Section_Exhibit Name: Illustration 46
• Media Type: D
• Archive: Yes

;OLORADO DEPARTMENT OFIiEALTH, Wnter Qua(iry Courol Division
:ntlonnle-Pnge 6. Permit NO.'CO-0038024
s S?
004, 024, and 026 208 (White River) 0.0322 <I
The IWCjor [his permit is less than 1 %, which represents a wastewater concentration oj/00% effluent to <I % receiving
stream. The average monthly flow was taken from the previous sell-monitoring data. This value was only for outfall
001; however, it is implied chat thts is representative of the combined flows from 024 and 026 as well. This is due to the
infrequency of a reportable discharge from these two outfa[Is. See the following paragraph jor additional criteria in
determirsing whether acute or chronic requirements apply.
3) Aram WFT 1 im:mt:nnc: The potential for toxicity in coalmine drainage is demonstrated by a growing Division database
of WET test jallures, including several failures at this facility. On this basis, as required under the Rvmdnrinnc (n rh
$tam Aicrhn4roP PPrmir gycrPn, the Division finds there is reasonable potential for the discharges from outfalls 004, 024,
and 026 to interfere with attainment of appltcable water quality classifications ar standards. Because of this condition,
the acute limitation has been incorporated into [he permit. Because the permtttee has been performing acute WET
monitoring jor five years under the previous permit, the acute limitation will become effective immediately. The
permtttee it required to conduct routine monitoring, the resulU of which are to be reported as an LCso. fj the LCso 5
100% effluent, the permtttee is required to conduct the automatic compliance schedule as identified in Part I.B. of the
pennie. The results of the testing are to be reported on Division approved forms
i •
4) P,vrsaraf Inlnrrnntinn: The permtttee shoufd read the WET testing sections ojPart LA. and LB. of the permit carefully.
The permit outlines the test requirements and the required fallow-up actions the permittee must take to resolve a toxicity
incident. The permtttee should read, along with the documents listed in Part LB of the permit, the Cnlnrndn Watar
(hrnlity tnnMat /)ivi Ginn Rimm~nim i~o (:nidnnrP tipmlmPnt dated July 1, 1993. This document outlines the criteria
used by the Division in such areas as granting reliejfrom WET testing, mod~ing test methods and changing test
species: The permtttee should be aware that some of the conditions outlined above may be subject to change ij the
facility experiences a change in discharge, as outlined in Part 1LA.1 of the permit. Such changes shall be reported to
the Division immediately.
Because the Division does wt expect toxicity in coal mining surface runoff WET testing is not a requirementjor outjalls
007, 002, 003, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 015, and 028 in this permit. However, the Division reserves the right to reopen
the permit to include WET testng, should foci/try conditions change or if new information becomes available.
3. Stnrmwator: Active and inactive coal mining operations where Stormwater comes into contact with overburden, row material,
intermediate products, byproducts, finished products or waste produc4 located at the mining site are included in category (iii) of
the federal Stormwater regulations. Such facilities are required to have applied jor a permit to discharge sto»nwater associated
with mining activity an or before Oclober 1, 1991.
The Division received a Colorado Stormwater discharge permit application for the Deserado Mine in 1995 (General Permit
Number COR-040172). The Division's Stormwater Unit will thus handle Stormwater permitting issues jor this facility
separately, although [his permit maybe reopened later to incorporate Stormwater provisions, if deemed appropriate.
4. Frnnnmer RPacnnn6lPnocc F.valunnnn: Section 25-8-503(8) of the revised (June 1985) t'nlnradn Water m ity C'nntrn! A t
required the Division to "determine whether or not any or a!I of the water quality standard based effluent limitations are
reasonably related to the economic, environmental, public health and energy impacts to the public and affected persons, and are
in furtherance ajthe policies setforth in sections 25-B-J92 and 25-8-104. "
The Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, Regulation 61.0, further define this requirement under section 61.11 and
state.' "Where economic, environmental, public health and energy impacts to the public and affected persons have been
considered in the classifications and standards setting process, permits written to meet the standards may be presumed to have
taken into consideration economic factors unless:
a) Anew permit is issued where the discharge was not in existence during the classification and standards rvlemaldng, or

b) Jn the case of a continuing discharge, additional information or factors have emerged that were not anticipated or
considered at the rime of the classification and standards rulemaking."
Furthermore, this is no[ a new discharger and no new information has been presented regarding the classifications and
standards. Therefore, the water qualirystandard-based effluent limitations of this permit are determined to be reasonably related
to the economic, environmental, public health and energy impacts to the public and affected persons and are in furtherance of the