2008-11-06_REVISION - M1980244 (3)

Home Browse Search

The type of monitoring, or the intent behind this agreement, is one of the issues I am trying to get Parsons to explain. I beleive it is monitoring that is different from that regulated under the NPDES, therefore, it is sometihng that DRMS could regulate. As soon as I get clarification from Parsons or Peter O'Connor I will forward that to you all. >>> "Berry, David" <David.Berry@state.co.us> 11/06/08 11:11 AM >>> All - I will provide direction on this, but first, please describe for me the exact nature of the monitoring to be conducted under the proposed stip. Is the proposed stipulation monitoring the same as the monitoring that occurs at the point source discharge compliance point (regulated outfall) required for the NPDES permit? Or, is the proposed stipulation monitoring to be conducted in some manner different from the NPDES required monitoring (different location, different frequency, different parameters?). DB From: Cheryl Linden [mailto:Cheryl.Linden@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:51 AM To: Keffelew, Berhan; Berry, David; Jeff Fugate; Waldron, Tony Subject: RE: Draft of Division decision document for review and edit I think we are on the same page but let's make sure. What is it that DBMS will be enforcing if the condition becomes part of the permit? What will be a violation of the permit? My thought is that if CC&V fails to do the monitoring, that would be a violation of the DBMS permit. If numerical standards of the CDPS are detected through such monitoring, then I think what Berhan is saying is that would not be a violation of the DRMS permit and that CDPHE would have to bring a violation. Berhan, is this correct? If so, do all parties understand this? Do we need to add clarifying language to this effect? >>> "Keffelew, Berhan" <Berhan.Keffelew@state.co.us> 11/6/2008 10:15 AM Hi Cheryl. I have no problem with the way it is proposed, I just want all parties to understand that we can monitor as proposed with no enforcement authority. If the discharge from the tunnel was not covered by the CDOHJ&E permit, DRMS would have set numeric protection level to protect the GW, where we have the jurisdictional authority under the provisions you mentioned.. Thank you From: Cheryl Linden [mailto:Cheryl.Linden@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:14 AM To: Keffelew, Berhan; Berry, David; Jeff Fugate; Waldron, Tony Subject: RE: Draft of Division decision document for review and edit Given Berhan's comments, let's be clear, if these conditions are put into DRMS' permit, DRMS has the authority to enforce them. Therefore, DRMS must have a clear understanding of what these conditions cover. This is why Jeff Fugate is raising whether the conditions need to be clarified. 2