HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.18.11 letter from CDPHEJohn W. Hickentooper, Governor
Christopher E. Urbana, MD, MPH
Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
STATE OF COLORADO
Dedicated to protecting and Improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246 -1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone (303) 692.2000 Denver, Colorado 80230 -6928
Located in Giendate, Colorado (303) 692 -3090
http•Jlvwvw.cdphe.state.00.us
May 18, 2011
Leonard W Mallett, VP Engr
Enterprise Gas Processing LLC
PO Box 4324
Houston, TX 77210
RE: Certification, Colorado Discharge Permit System -- Hydrostatic Testing Operations
Permit Number COG604000 Certification Number: COG604102
Dear Mr. Mallett;
Enclosed please find a copy of the permit certification, which was Issued under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act.
Please read the enclosed permit and certification.
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
RECEIVED
MAY 2 6 2011
"Environmental Compliance°
The Water Quality Control Division (the Division) has reviewed the application submitted for the PCP Loop Pipeline Project
facility and determined that it qualifies for coverage under the CDPS General Permit for Hydrostatic Testing Operations (the
permit).
Discharge Specific information
• The discharge Is to Dry Fork, East Fork, Stewart Gulch, Piceance Ditch, Jessup Gulch, Collins Gulch & Little Corral Gulch within
segments 14a, 16, and 17 of the White River Sub- basin, Lower Colorado River Basin, found in the Classifications and Numeric
Standards for the Lower Colorado River Basin (Regulation No. 37). Segment 14a is Reviewable, and is classified for the
following beneficial uses: Aquatic Life, Class 1 Cold; Recreation Class P; and Agriculture. Segment 161s Reviewable, and is
classified for the following beneficial uses: Aquatic Life, Class 2 Warm; Recreation Class P; and Agriculture. Segment 17 is
Reviewable, and Is classified for the following beneficial uses: Aquatic Life, Class 2 Warm; Recreation Class P; and Agriculture.
This certification does not authorize the discharge from any system that contains chemicals, nor can any chemicals be added to
the water used in the hydrostatic testing. Chemicals and additives Include, but are not limited to glycol, microbiological
additives, and foaming agents.
Basis for Site Soedf. Lc Parameters
• Discharges to the Colorado River Basin require sampling and monitoring for Total Dissolved Solids in accordance with
Regulation 39, Colorado River Salinity Standards.
General Information
• Permit Action Fees: The Annual Fee for this certification Is $630 [Category 26, Subcategory 2 Minimal Industrial Discharge per
CRS 25 -8 -502) and is invoiced every July. Do Not Pay This Now. The initial invoice will be prorated and sent to the legal
contact shortly.
• Changes to the Certification: Any changes that need to be made to the certification page -- changes in outfalls, monitoring
requirements, etc., must be submitted using the "Permit and Certification Modification form" available on our website:
coloradowateraermits,com, and signed by the legal contact.
• Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs): DMR forms will be mailed out within the net month. Reports must be submitted
monthly as long as the certification is in effect. The permittee shall provide the Division with any ; -` g
data on the permitted discharge collected for entities other than the Division. This will be supplied on wit in
MAY 242011
1 FONARD MALLETT
48 hours of the receipt of the data by the permittee. If forms have not been received, please contact the Division at 303 -
692 -3517.
• Sampling Requirements: Sampling shall occur at a point after treatment, or after the implementation of any Best
Management Practices (BMPs). If BMPs or treatment are not implemented, sampling shall occur where the discharge
leaves control of the permittee, and prior to entering the receiving stream or prior to discharge to land. Samples must be
representative of what is entering the receiving stream.
• Termination requirements: This certification to discharge is effective long term, even though hydrostatic testing discharges
are only expected for approximately three months. For termination of permit coverage, the permittee must initiate this
by sending the "CDPS Permits and Authorization Termination Form.' This form is also available on our web site and must
be signed by the legal contact.
• Certification Records Information: The following information is what the Division records show for this certification.
For any changes to Contacts — Legal, Local, Billing, or DMR — a "Notice of Change of Contacts form" must be submitted
to the Division. This form is also available on our web site and must be signed by the legal contact.
Facility: PCP Loop Pipeline Project County: Rio Blanco
Industrjgl Activities Hydrostatic test water from new natural gas pipelines SIC Code 4600 and 4922
Legal Contact Receives all legal documentation, pertaining to the permit certification. (including invoice; is contacted for any
questions relating to the facility; and receives DMRs os appropriate - mobile discharge points do not receive DMRs— using the
blank DMR form available on coloradowaterpermlts.com website.J
Leonard W Mallett, VP Engr Phone number: 713- 381 -1785
Enterprise Gas Processing LLC Email: Jagwhite@eprod.com
PO Box 4324
Houston, TX 77210
Billing Contact
Shiver Nolan Sr Compl Admin Phone number: 713 -381 -6595
Enterprise Gas Processing LLC Email: snoian @eprod.com
PO Box 4324
Houston, TX 77210
DMR Contact
Kay Lambert Phone number:970- 243 -3271
Email: klambert@hricomp.com
If you have any other questions please contact me at 303 -692 -3217.
Sincerely,
Nicole Rolfe, Permit Writer
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
Enclosures: Certification page; General Permit
xc: Regional Council of Government
Rio Blanco County, Local County Health Department
D.E., Technical Services Unit, WQCD
Permit File
/dkj
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
TELEPHONE: (303) 692 -3500
CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE
UNDER
CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COG604000
HYDROSTATIC TESTING OPERATIONS
Certification Number: COG604102
This Certification to Discharge specifically authorizes;
Enterprise Gas Processing LLC
to discharge from the facility identified as
PCP Loop Pipeline Project
to:
East Fork Stewart Gulch, Stewart Gulch, Piceance Creek, Jessup Gulch, Collins Gulch & Little
Corral Gulch
Facility Located at: CR 5 & Stewart Gulch, Rio Blanco County, Uninc, CO 00000
Facility Location
Latitude 39.7954, Longitude - 108.1632
Outfall Number 001 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin to the East Fork Stewart Gulch at Latitude: 39.700679,
Longitude: - 108.152881. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
Outfall Number 002 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin to the East Fork Stewart Gulch at Latitude: 39.744743,
Longitude: - 108.140337. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
Outfall Number 003 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin to the East Fork Stewart Gulch at Latitude: 39.782918,
Longitude: - 108.152068. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
Outfall Number 004 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin to the Stewart Gulch at Latitude: 39.744743,
Longitude: - 108.140337. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
Outfall Number 005 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin to the Piceance Creek at Latitude: 39.822727,
Longitude: - 108.166561. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
Outfall Number 006 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin to the unnamed tributary to Jessup Gulch at Latitude:
39.839468, Longitude: - 108.160464. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
Outfall Number 007 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin to the unnamed tributary to Collins Gulch at Latitude:
39.884084, Longitude: - 108.154686. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
Outfall Number 008 -A
The new natural gas pipeline hydrostatic test effluent will discharge through a
straw bale sediment basin Little Corral Gulch at Latitude: 39.899935, Longitude:
- 108.187646. The discharge is estimated at 500 GPM.
•A11 discharges must comply with the lawful requirements of federal agencies municipalities, counties, drainage districts and other local agencies regarding any
discharges to storm drain systems, conveyances, or other water courses under their jurisdiction.
Page 1 of 15
Permit Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for Outfalls 001A -008A apply as outlined in the Permit
Part I.B and Part I.0
pH(Minimum-
Maximum)
00400
mit►Ischarge
I'atloinns
Maximum
oncentratlons';:'
Daily Max.
APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCHARGES AS LISTED IN GENERAL PERMIT
Total Suspended Solids
00530
S.U.
6.5 -9.0 2X /discharge
In -situ
mg/I
30
2X /discharge
Grab
Oil and Grease'
03582
m /I 10
2X /discharge
Grab3
Flow,
50050
MGD
Report
2X /discharge
Instantaneous or
Continuous
Oil and Grease Visual 3
84066
Report3
2X /discharge
visual'
Iron (Potentially
Dissolved)
01317
ug/I
300
2X /discharge
Grab
SITE SPECIFI
PARAMETERS
Total Dissolved Solids
70295
mg/l
Report
2X /discharge
Grab
1 • Samples will be taken during the first and last hour of discharge. If the discharge is less than an hour, then the samples will be collected during the first and
last 15 minutes of discharge. The sample point will be immediately following the discharge from the pipeline or vessel. If the discharge is going through BMPs
or treatment then sampling point shall be after such BMPshreatment and prior to discharge to State Waters.
2 Flow can be measured with a recorder or determined from estimates based on volume of fill water, dimension of the pipeline, or volume of the vessel filled
with water.
3 There shall be no visual sheen. A visual observation for Oil and Grease Is required twice per discharge. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample must be
collected at the frequency established in the monitoring table above. If a visual sheen is not detected, a grab sample is not required.
Certification is issued 5/18/2011 Effective 5/18/2011 Certification Expires: 12/31/2012
This certification under the permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. The
certification holder is legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit.
Signed,
Nathan Moore
Construction, MS4, & Pretreatment Unit Manager
Water Quality Control Division
Dnni 1 nP1S
Page 2
Permit No. COG - 604000
CDPS GENERAL PERMIT
DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF
PIPELINES, TANKS, AND SIMILAR VESSELS
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, (25 -8 -101 et seq., CRS, 1973 as
amended) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the "Act "), facilities
discharging wastewater from hydrostatic testing of pipelines, storage tanks, and similar vessels that are
determined to be of minimal impact are authorized to discharge from approved locations throughout the State of
Colorado to ground and/or surface waters of the State. Such discharges shall be in accordance with the conditions
of this permit.
This permit specifically authorizes the permittee listed on page 1 of this permit, which is the facility certification, to
discharge process generated wastewaters as of the date stated on page 1, in accordance with the permit
requirements and conditions set forth in Parts I and 11 hereof and the facility certification, All discharges
authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit.
Any party, including those currently certified under this general permit, may demand an adjudicatory hearing
within thirty days of the issuance of the fmal permit determination, per the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations, Regulation No. 61 (5 CCR 1002 -61). Should a party choose to contest any of the effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements or other conditions contained herein, the party must comply with Section 24 -4 -104 CRS
and the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations. Failure to contest any such effluent limitation, monitoring
requirement, or other condition, constitutes consent to the condition by the party.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, December 31, 2012
Issued and Signed this 25th day of September, 2007
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Janet Kieler, Permits Section Manager
Water Quality Control Division
ISSUED AND SIGNED SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 1, 2008
PART 1
Page 3
Permit No. COG-604000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
A. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT ,,,,,,, ........... .................. ...................... ......... . ..... ................ ... . ............. 4
1. Eligibility 4
2. Application Raluirements ........ ..... .. .................. ........ _ .......... ........... . ...... ...„,.„.. ..... ........- .... 4
3. Certification Requirenants ........ ..... ........ ........ ....................... ..... ..... ....... „ ...... .......... ..... ....... _ ........... ..... 4
B. TERMS AND CONDMONS 5
1. Narrative Limitations and Exclusions ................ ........ ..... 5
2. Numeric Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements ............... ..... ................ ........ ......... .......... 5
3, Exemption fmrn Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements .. 7
4 Best MaTintrflilli PrAake(BMPNAMISCMCMPlan .7
5. Other Sitc-specilic Conditinns . 1.1■,,,,••••,••■••• ....... ........ ...... ....... .......................... ■•••••"••■••■•■■••• ...... ..... 9
C. DEFINMONS 9
D. ADDMONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 10
1. Discharge Sampling Point 10
10
E GENERAL MONITORING. SAMPLING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 10
1. Routine Reporling of Data 10
2. Representative Sampling 11
3. Analytical and Sampling Methods for Monitoring 11
4. Records 12
5. Signatory and Certification Requirements 12
PART II 14
A. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 14
1. Notification to Parties 14
2. Change in Discharge 14
3. Special Notifications - Definitions 14
4. Noncompliance Notification 14
5. Other Notification Requirements 15
6. Bypass Noti Aeolian 16
7. Upsets 16
8. Disdutrge Point 16
9. Proper Opentrat and Maintenance 16
10, Minimization of Adverse Impact 16
11. Removed Substances 3.6
12, submission of Incorrect or Incomplete Information 16
13. Bypass 17
14. Reduction, Lon, or Failure of Treatment Facility 17
B. RESPONSIBILITIES 17
1. Inspections and Right to Entry 17
2. Duty to Provide information 18
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control 18
4. 18
5, Modification, Suspension, Revocation, or Termination of Permits By the Division 18
6. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability 20
7. State Laws 20
8. Permit Violations 20
9. Property Rights 20
10. &variability 20
11. Renewal Application 20
12, Termination of Pemit 21.
11 Confidentiality 21
14. Fees 21
15. Duration of Permit 21
16. Section 307 Toxic; 21
17. Andbacksliding 21
18. Effect of Permit Issuance 22
PAR 1' 1
Page 4
Permit No. COG - 604000
PART 1
A. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT
1. Eligibility
To be considered eligible for authorization to discharge under the terms and conditions of this permit, the owner or
operator of any facility desiring to discharge hydrostatic test water from the testing of new or used pipes,
storage tanks, and similar vessels to ground and/or surface waters of the State must submit a complete permit
application form obtained from the Division. This also includes flushing. At least thirty days prior to the
anticipated date of discharge, the application shall be submitted to:
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
WQCD -P -B2
4300 Cheny Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246 -1530
The specific application for this general permit ,with instructions, is available as a hardcopy for pick -up, by
calling (303) 692 -3500, or online at the Division's website:
http: / /www.cdphe. state. co. us/ wq/ PermitsUnit/Industriallindex.html
The Division has thirty days after receipt of the above information to request additional data and/or deny the
authorization for any particular discharge. Upon receipt of additional information, the Division has an additional
thirty days to issue or deny authorization for the particular discharge.
If the Division determines that the operation does not fall under the authority of the general permit, then the
information received will be treated as application for an individual permit. In such case, discharge is not allowed
until a permit is issued, which may take 180 days.
This general permit will expire on December 31, 2012. The Division must evaluate this general permit at least
once every five years and must also recertify all existing permittees' authority to discharge under the general
permit at such time. Permittees desiring continued coverage under this general permit must re -apply 180 days
prior to the expiration date of this general permit. The Division will review all applications and determine on a
case -by -case basis if permittees are eligible to continue to operate under the terms of the general permit. An
application for an individual permit will be required for any point source discharge not reauthorized to discharge
under the reissued general permit.
2. Application Requirements
The application referenced above will require the following information:
a. Name, address, and descriptive location of the facility, including latitude and longitude. In the scenario where
the discharge is not from a facility but from a linear project include a description of the location of the
discharges, including the latitude and longitude of each approximate discharge location;
b. Names and contact information for legal contact and principal in charge of the project or operation of the
facility;
c. Description of the type of activity resulting in the discharge, including the anticipated duration of the activity
and/or the discharge, anticipated volume and rate of discharge, and the source of water, which is to be
discharged;
d. Name of potential receiving State Waters, (including irrigation ditches, intermittent streams, dry drainage, and
groundwater);
e. Where pollutants are expected in the discharge, a description of the wastewater treatment system, recycle/reuse,
or BMPs utilized that will effectively and consistently meet all applicable effluent limitations (failure to provide
satisfactory treatment may result in immediate denial);
f. A topographic map showing the general geographical location of the facility and/or discharge(s) and any nearby
landfills, mine or mill tailings, or drinking water intakes;
g. A sketch of the facility and/or project showing all structures, discharge points, sampling locations, and receiving
waters, as well as storage locations of any petroleum or chemicals on site;
h. A chemical analysis of the water to be discharged (only if requested by permit writer), if used pipelines are
being tested expect that the Division will request chemical analysis;
3. Certification Requirements
Under this general permit, facilities performing hydrostatic testing of pipelines, storage tanks, and similar
vessels may be granted authorization to discharge process generated wastewater effluent to ground and/or surface
waters of the State of Colorado. Both new and used vessels are covered under this permit although different effluent
limitations apply to each.
4
rnnki
Page 5
Permit No. COG - 604000
An entity can be granted blanket coverage under this permit when hydrostatic testing of multiple pipes, tanks, or
similar vessels is being performed in the same geographic area providing common permit terms and conditions are
appropriate. The certification will describe the physical boundaries authorized under that certification and any
special conditions that may apply.
B. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Narrative Limitations and Exclusions
The following limitations shall apply to all discharges covered by this permit:
a. Industrial discharges from cleaning shall not cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or measurably
contribute to an exceedance of water quality standard, including narrative standards for water quality.
b. Chemicals may not be added to the discharge unless the Division grants specific permission, which will be
stated in the certification to discharge. In granting the use of chemicals, special conditions and monitoring
requirements may be addressed in the certification to discharge.
c. There shall be no discharge of solid animal or food waste, vegetative wastes (grass, leaves, manure, garbage,
etc.), or any floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
d. The Division reserves the right to require sampling and testing, on a case -by -case basis, in the event that
there is reason to suspect that compliance with the permit and BMP Compliance Plan is a problem, or to
measure the effectiveness of the BMP's in removing pollutants in the effluent.
e. The Division reserves the right to require the permittee to submit their BMP Compliance Plan(s) for review.
f. All discharges must comply with the lawful requirements of federal agencies, municipalities, counties,
drainage districts, and other local agencies regarding any discharges to storm drain systems, conveyances, or
other water courses under their jurisdiction. In addition, prior to the discharge the permittee must notify the
owner of the system of the date, approximate time, location, and duration of the discharge(s).
Continuous discharges are not covered under this permit. Only discharges expected to be of short duration
may be covered.
g.
2. Numeric Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
In accordance with the Water Quality Control Commission Regulations for Effluent Limitations, Section 62.4. (5
CCR 1002 -62), and the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, Section 61.8.(2) (5 CCR 1002 -61), the
permitted discharge shall not contain effluent parameter concentrations which exceed the following limitations. For
discharges that meet the requirements for being exempt from effluent limits and require the implementation of a
BMP Management Plan, see section 1.B.3 and I.B.4 of this permit.
Discharges authorized under this permit are considered temporary in nature due to their expected short duration.
a. N eric Effluent Limitations and Monitorin Re uirements for New i lines tanks or other imilar vessel
Effluent Parameter Discharge Limitations Monitorin Sam le Type
Dail Max Frequency' p yP
Flow o 2 X/ disch Estimate
Total Suspended Solia ds, mg/1 30
2 X/ discharge Grab
Oil and Grease, nom/1 10 2 X/ discharge ,,� Visual/Grab
H s.u. 61-9.0 2 X/ disc a In -situ
Dissolved Iron m 0.3 2 X/ dischar Grab
Site -s • ecific
Total Residual Chiorine� nmg 0.019
Other Pollutants units Limit'
2 X/ discharge In -situ
2 X/ dischar a Grab
Other Pollutants, units
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Phosphorus, mail,
Total Phosphorus, mg/l'
Rcpart 2 X/ discharge__
Re rt 2 X/ dischar : e
Grab
Grab
0.05 2 X/ discharge Grab
Grab
Report 2 X/ discharge
b.
PART 1
Page 6
Permit No. COG - 604000
Numeric Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for Used pipelines. tanks. or other similar vessels
Effluent Parameter
Discharge Limitations
Dail�Ma�x ,
Flows
Total Suspended Solids, rng/1
Oil and Grease, rn1/1 10
H su 6.5 -9.0
Total Recoverable Iron, mg/I 1.0
Dissolved Iron, mg/1 0.3
Site - specific
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/I 0.019
Benzene, mg/I 0.0022
Toluene, mg/1 1.0
Ethyl Benzene, malt 0.5
Xylenes, mg/I 1.4
Other Pollutants units Limit
Other Pollutants, units
Total Dissolved Solids
30
Monitoring _...
Frequenc
2 X/ discharge
2 X/ discharge
2 X/ discharge
2 X/ discharge
2 X/ discharge
2 X/ discharge
Sample Type
Estimate
Grab
Visual/Grab
In-situ
Grab
Grab
2 X/ discharge In -situ
2 X/ dischar a Grab
2 X! discharge Grab
30 2 X/ discharge Grab_
- 2 X/ disc a Grab
2 X/ discharge Grab
Report 2 X/ discharge Grab
R • rt _23C/ h a Grab
0.05 __DS! discharge Grab
2 X/ discharge Grab
Total Pho
horus
Total Phosphorus, mgll
R port
Samples will be taken during the first and last hour of discharge. If the discharge is Tess than an hour, then the samples will be
collected during the first and last 15 minutes of discharge. The sample point will be immediately following the discharge from the
pipeline or vessel. If the discharge is going through BMPs or treatment then sampling point shall be after such BMPs / treatment and
prior to discharge to State Waters. If the same hydrotesting program is conducted in more than one location along an extensive
pipleline, then the monitoring frequency can be adjusted on a site - specific basis with support for this decision provided in the
certification.
3 Flow can be measured with a recorder or determined from estimates based on volume of fill water, dimension of the pipeline, or
volume of the vessel filled with water.
3 There shall be no visual sheen. Ifa visual sheen is detected a grab sample is required.
Limits will be established on a site - specific basis for additional parameters. For example if the fill water is a drinking water supply,
then total residual chlorine monitoring will be required. See Pan I.B.2.d of this permit.
S Monitoring is required only for discharges within the Colorado River Basin
s Monitoring and/or numeric effluent limits may apply to discharges to watersheds with a control regulation for Phosphorus.
c. Water Quality Standards — Site-specific limitations for additional parameters will be added on a case -by -case
basis that are equivalent to the water quality standards found in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for
Surface Water (5 CCR 1002 -31) or The Basic Standards for Ground Water (5 CCR 1002 -41), as appropriate,
and will be specified in the certification along with appropriate monitoring frequencies.
d. Chemical Addition — All chemicals that are or may be in the discharge are subject to review and approval. A
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) showing aquatic toxicity data shall be submitted with the permit
application. The permit writer will review the MSDS and any other applicable information prior to approval.
If additional pollutants may be discharged as a result of the chemical addition, limitations and/or monitoring
may be added to those in the table above to assure constituents in the chemicals do not violate water quality
standards.
e. Volume of Water Discharged (Flow) — A flow limit may apply. See the individual certification rationale for the
flow limit applicable to the facility. Either a flow measuring device or an approved alternate determination of
the total volume and total time of discharge may be used for effluent flow monitoring; see footnote 2 from tables
above.
g.
Salinity Monitoring — In compliance with the Colorado River Salinity Standards (Regulation No. 39) and the
Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations (Regulation No. 61), all permittees in the Colorado River basin
shall monitor for total dissolved solids (TDS). Samples shall be taken at all authorized outfalls. If TDS
monitoring is a requirement of the permit then it shall be included in the site-specific certification. Additional
monitoring for TDS shall be included on the DMR and shall be subject to the permit's monitoring and reporting
requirements. TDS sampling shall be taken as a grab sample.
Control Regulations -- Control regulations exist to place additional limits on discharges to surface waters in five
watersheds — Dillon Reservoir, Cherry Creek Reservoir, Chatfield Reservoir, Cheraw Lake, and Bear Creek
Reservoir. The total available wasteloads (i.e., phosphorus) have been allocated in these regulations to various point and
rru' 1
Page 7
Permit No. COG - 604000
non - point sources that discharge on these Watersheds. Certifications for discharges to these watersheds may include
limitations and/or monitoring requirements for the parameters specified in the regulation.
h. Discharges to 303(d) listed waters — Since the effluent limits are equal to the water - quality standards and the
discharge is expected to be short -term or intermittent, the assumption is that the discharge will not further impair
the quality of the receiving water for the 303(d)-listed parameters.
i. Discharging to Ground Water Facilities permitted under this general permit may discharge to ground water via
land application, infiltration ponds or other approved means. Because the standards for groundwater are based
on water supply and agricultural uses, which also apply to surface waters of the state, the Division has
determined that discharges that are protective of surface water standards are also protective of groundwater
standards, unless a more stringent site - specific groundwater standard has been adopted. The Division will
include a site - specific limit in the certification or require coverage under an individual permit as needed to
implement more stringent site - specific groundwater standards. Certain discharges, due to proximity to alluvial
water associated with nearby surface slow, are considered to be hydrologically connected to this surface flow
and will be considered a discharge to surface water. If a permittee desires to discharge to ground water via
approved means, the permittee shall demonstrate in the application by what method effluent will be discharged
to ground water, and how and where effluent can be monitored prior to discharge to ground water. All
applicable effluent limitations will be met prior to application to the land.
j. Additional Monitoring The Division reserves the right to request monitoring of additional pollutants to
measure the effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMP's) in removing pollutants in the effluent (see
Part I.B.3. and 4. of this permit). Such monitoring shall be implemented, where appropriate, as described in the
facility's certification.
3. Exemptions From Numeric Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
The Division may exempt the need to impose numeric effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in an
applicants certification to discharge if all of the following conditions can be met. In addition, the permittee will be
required to create and implement a BMP Management Plan (See Part I.B.4).
a. The pipelines or vessels being tested are new;
b. If groundwater is the source water used in the testing, there shall be no evidence of contamination (the Division
may request analysis upon review of the application);
c. The flow rate is minimal, intermittent and short-term;
d. No additives have been added to the `Source Water'
e. The discharge is not to a 303 (d) listed segment impaired for sediment, pH, or Dissolved Iron;
f. The permittee (applicant) does not have a history of non - compliance with the previous MIND' permit for
discharges associated with hydrostatic testing; and
g. The applicant prepares a working and functioning Best Management Practice (BMP) Management Plan
Upon review of the application, the Division will determine if all of the above mentioned conditions can be met to allow
for an exemption of numeric effluent limits and monitoring requirements. The certification to discharge will state
whether numeric effluent limitations and monitoring requirements will be a condition of the permit or whether
compliance with a BMP Management Plan will be a condition of the permit.
4. Best Management Practices (BMP) Management Plan
Applicants who can meet the conditions stated in Part I.B.3 and believe numeric effluent limitations should not be
applicable and compliance with a BMP Management plan would sufficiently protect water quality shall prepare a
BMP Management Plan prior to discharge. A copy of the BMP Plan shall be kept on site and updated whenever
necessary to adequately represent field conditions. The BMP Plan DOES NOT need to be submitted to the Division
unless specifically requested.
The permittee shall implement and maintain the BMP Plan for the prevention of erosion and the control of solid and
liquid pollutants due to the discharge. The procedures in the plan must be followed for each discharge.
a. The BMP Management Plan shall include the following items, at a minimum:
1. Location of the Discharge —Name, address, and descriptive location of the facility, including latitude and
longitude. In the scenario where the discharge is not from a facility but from a linear project include a
description of the location of the discharges, including the latitude and longitude of each approximate
discharge location.
PAR I1
Page 8
Permit No. COG - 604000
2. Legal Contact Information —Names and contact information for legal contact and principal in charge of
project or operation of' the facility
3. Description of the Discharge -- Description of the type of activity resulting in the discharge, including the
anticipated duration of the activity and/or the discharge, anticipated volume and rate of discharge, and the
source of water, which is to be discharged;
4. Identify the Receiving Stream —Name of potential receiving State Waters, (including irrigation ditches,
intermittent streams, dry drainage, and groundwater);
5. Overview Map- -A topographic map showing the general geographical location of the facility and/or
project, identify the location of the discharge(s), and any nearby landfills, mine or mill tailings,
6. Site Map —A site map containing the following:
a. A sketch of the facility and/or project boundary,
b. A sketch showing all structures including storage locations of any petroleum or chemicals on site,
c. The location of the discharge points (numbered),
d. The location of the receiving waters,
e. The location of the BMPs selected to reduce the pollutant sources identified
7. Potential Pollutant Sources -- Identify all potential pollutants which may reasonably be expected in the
discharge or expected to effect the discharge;
At a minimum, each of the following sources and activities shall be evaluated for the potential to
contribute pollutants to the discharge, and identified in the BMP Management Plan if found to have such
potential:
a. The potential for Total Suspended Solids to be in the discharge, there shall be no sludge banks or
deposition of solids downstream from the discharge;
b. The potential for Oil and Grease to be in the discharge; there shall be no visible sheen in the
discharge;
c. The potential for debris from inside the new pipeline or vessel to be in the discharge; there shall be
no visible evidence of solids or debris in the discharge;
d. The potential for pollutants to be in the discharge as a result of the source water, (i.e., if the source
water is from a drinldng water supply, chlorine is a potential pollutant source);
e. The potential from any hazardous materials or chemicals stored or used on site to be in the discharge;
f. The potential for spills from bulk storage structures for gasoline and other chemicals to enter the
effluent stream or waters of the State. These structures shall have adequate protection so as to contain
all spills;
g. Significant dust or particulate generated at job site;
8. Best Management Practices -- Identify and describe the Best Management Practices that will be
implemented at the site to reduce the potential of the sources identified in Part B.4.a.7 to contribute
pollutants to the process water discharge. The Plan shall clearly describe the installation and
implementation specifications for each BMP identified in the Plan to ensure proper implementation,
operation and maintenance of the BMP.
Practices may include, but are not Iimited to:
a. Hazardous materials or chemicals stored or used on site shall be adequately handled and contained to
prevent spills. Earthen dikes or concrete basins with capacity to hold contents of storage tanks or
containers shall be used to prevent spills of these materials into State Waters in the event of failure of
the storage containers.
b. Control of excessive suspended solids shall be undertaken as necessary to prevent reaching surface
receiving waters and causing any receiving water deterioration.
c. Total suspended solids can be reduced by filtering the discharge, by directing the water into a settling
basin and allowing the solids to settle, or by developing a clearwell and pumping from this structure in
the case of groundwater discharges, using filter bags, sediment traps, etc.;
d. Modification of the pipe discharge structure to disperse flows;
YMK11
Page 9
Permit No. COG- 604000
e. In the case of oxygen- consuming pollutants in the discharge, BOD may be reduced by filtering or
screening out solid particles before discharge. Removal of all debris in pipeline or vessel shall be done
prior to hydrostatic testing. Collected debris shall be disposed of properly and promptly so as not to
contaminate effluent or State Waters.
f. Discharges that may contain oil or grease shall be treated with oil absorbent booms, socks, pads, or
directed through a filter structure containing oil absorbing material before discharge. An oil /water
separator may be needed to comply with the effluent limitations (for fixed facilities).
9. Structural BMP Maintenance —This part of the plan shall describe how the structural BMPs will be
maintained, For example, if the applicant is proposing to use filter bags to control the suspended solids in
the discharge, describe how the filter bags will be maintained (e.g.; the filter bags will be emptied as
required by the manufacturers specifications, the bags will emptied after the bag has filtered 500 gallons of
discharge water). BMPs must be maintained in a manner and frequency to ensure that pollutants are not
released to waters of the state.
10. Inspection Report/Records —A requirement of the BMP Management Plan is to perform and document
visual inspections. Visual inspections must be performed at least twice per discharge at each discharge
location. Inspection records must be maintained for the life of the permit or 3 years, whichever is greater.
The Division reserves the right to request copies of inspection records, and/or the Division reserves the right
to inspect the permitted discharge and request to review the inspection records at the time of inspection.
Inspection Records, must include at minimum:
a. The name of the individual performing the inspection;
b. The time and date of the inspection;
c. Indicate which discharge point this inspection record addresses;
d. A description of the discharge., i.e., 'the discharge is visibly clear' or 'the discharge slightly turbid', or
'the discharge has a visual sheen to it', etc.;
e. A description of problems found with the structural BMPs / are the BMPs functioning properly;
f. A description of the corrective action taken to correct the deficiencies found with any BMP;
g. A description of any pollutants that have been discharged to state waters
11. Required Actions —Where site inspections note the need for BMP maintenance activities, BMPs must be
maintained, repaired, or replaced immediately. This must be documented on the Inspection Record.
5, Other Site - specific Conditions
Specific permit conditions may be applied for compliance with any Division compliance order on consent, cease and
desist order, or an EPA administrative order, or similar decree promulgated by the Division, EPA, or other
regulatory authority.
C. DEFINITIONS
1. EPA methods 502, 602, 624, 1624, 8020, 8240, or 8260 shall be used for the measurement of total benzene,
ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes including ortho- meta -, and para-xylene.
2. A "composite" sample, for monitoring requirements, is a minimum of four (4) grab samples collected at equally
spaced two (2) hour intervals and proportioned according to flow.
3. A "continuous" measurement, for flow monitoring requirements, is a measurement obtained from an automatic
recording device, which continually measures flow.
4. "Daily Maximum limitation" means the limitation for this parameter shall be applied as an instantaneous maximum
(or, for pH or DO, instantaneous minimum) value. The instantaneous value is defined as the analytical result of any
individual sample. DMRs shall include the maximum (and/or minimum) of all instantaneous values within the
calendar month. Any instantaneous value beyond the noted daily maximum limitation for the indicated parameter
shall be considered a violation of this permit.
5. "Dissolved (D) metals fraction" is defined in the Basic Standards and Methodoloales for Surface Water 1002-
31, as that portion of a water and suspended sediment sample which passed through a 0.40 or 0.45 UM
(micron) membrane filter. Determinations of "dissolved" constituents are made using the filtrate. This may
include some very small (colloidal) suspended particles which passed through the membrane filter as well as the
amount of substance present in true chemical solution.
6. A "grab" sample, for monitoring requirements, is a single "dip and take" sample.
PART!
Page 10
Permit No. COG- 604000
7. An "in- situ" measurement, for monitoring requirements, is a single reading, observation, or measurement performed
on site.
8. "Potentially dissolved (PD) metals fraction" is defined in the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface
Water 1002 -31, as that portion of a constituent measured from the filtrate of a water and suspended sediment
sample that was first treated with nitric acid to a pH of 2 or less and let stand for 8 to 96 hours prior to sample
filtration using a 0.40 or 0.45 -UM (micron) membrane filter. Note the "potentially dissolved" method cannot
be used where nitric acid will interfere with the analytical procedure used for the constituent measured.
9. "Salinity" is measured as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Where based on a minimum of 5 samples, the permittee
demonstrates a correlation to the satisfaction of the Division that the level of TDS in the effluent can be calculated
based upon the level of electrical conductivity, the permittee may measure and report salinity in terms of electrical
conductivity.
10. "Total Recoverable Metals" means that portion of a water and suspended sediment sample measured by the
total recoverable analytical procedure described in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, March 1979 or its equivalent,
11. A "visual" observation, for Oil and Grease monitoring requirements, is defined as observing the discharge to check
for the presence of a visible sheen or floating oil. If either of these is present, a grab sample shall be taken, analyzed,
and reported on the appropriate DMR. In addition, corrective action shall be taken immediately to mitigate the
discharge of oil and grease. A description of the corrective action taken should be included with the DMR.
12. "Water Quality Control Division" or "Division" means the state Water Quality Control Division as established in 25-
8 -101 et al.)
D. ADDITIONAL. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. Discharge Sampling Point
Discharge points shall be so designed or modified so that a sample of the effluent can be obtained at a point after the
final treatment process and prior to discharge to State Waters. The permittee shall provide access to the Division to
sample the discharge at these points.
2. Additional Monitoring by. Permittee
If the permittee, using approved analytical methods, monitors any parameter more frequently than required by the
permit, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the
Discharge Monitoring Report form or other forms as required by the Division. Such increased frequency shall also
be indicated.
E. GENERAL MONITORING. SAMPLING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Routine Reporting of Data
For permittees required to report the data gathered in compliance with Part I.B.2. shall be on a monthly basis.
All data shall be reported on Division approved discharge monitoring report (DMR) forms (EPA form 3320 -1).
Monitoring results shall be summarized as appropriate for each calendar month. The highest monthly value for
the calendar quarter shall be reported in the appropriate place on the DMR. The original top copy of the form
shall be mailed to the Division, as indicated below, so that the DMR is received no later than the 28th day of the
following month (for example, January's DMR is due to the Division on the 28th day of February) If no discharge
occurs during the reporting period, "No Discharge" shall be reported. Refer to the instructions on the back of the
DMR forms for additional reporting information.
The DMR forms consist of multiple pages. After the DMR form has been completely filled out and signed, the
copies must be separated and distributed as follows:
The first original signed copy of each discharge monitoring report (DMR) shall be submitted to the Division at
the following address:
rruvx F
Page 11
PeimitNo. COG - 604000
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division,WQCD -P -B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246 -1530
All additional copies are for the permittee records. The Discharge Monitoring Report forms shall be filled out
accurately and completely in accordance with requirements of this permit and the instructions on the forms.
They shall be signed by an authorized person as identified in Part I.E.6.
Calculations for all limitations which require the averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean
unless otherwise specified in the permit.
2. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other wastestream, body of water, or substance.
Monitoring points shall not be changed without notification to and approval by the Division.
If the permittee monitors at the point of discharge any pollutant limited by the permit more frequently than
required by the permit, using approved test procedures or as specified in the permit, the result of this monitoring
shall be included in the calculation and reporting of data to the Division.
3. Analytical and Sam riling Methods for Monitoring
The permittee shall install, calibrate, use and maintain monitoring methods and equipment, including biological
and indicated pollutant monitoring methods. All sampling shall be performed by the permittee according to
specified methods in 40 CFR Part 136; methods approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR Part 136; or methods
approved by the Division, in the absence of a method specified in or approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 136. The
analytical method selected for a parameter shall be the one that can measure the lowest detected limit for
that parameter unless the permit limitation or stream standard for those parameters not limited, is within
the testing range of another approved method. When requested in writing, the Division may approve an
alternative analytical procedure or any significant modification to an approved procedure.
When the most sensitive analytical method which complies with this part, has a detection limit greater than or equal
to the permit limit, the permittee shall report 'less than (the detectable limit)," as appropriate. Such reports shall not
be considered as violations of the permit limit. The present lowest method detection limits for specific parameters
(which have limitations that are, in some cases, less than or equal to the detection limit) are as follows:
Effluent Characteristic Method Detection Limits, mall
Arsenic 0.010
Cadmium 0.005
Chromium 0.010
Chromium, Hexavalent 0.010
Copper 0.005
Iron 0.1
Lead 0.005
Manganese 0.6
Mercury 0.000003
Nickel 0.020
Phenols 0.050
Selenium 0.010
Silver 0.0002
Zinc 0.010
These limits apply to the total recoverable or the potentially dissolved fraction of metals.
For hexavalent chromium, samples must be unacidified so dissolved concentrations will be measured rather than
potentially dissolved concentrations.
Monitoring is required only when chlorine is present in any concentration in the source water or is added. For
purposes of this permit the method detection limits of the DPD colorimetric and the amperometric titration
methods of analysis for total residual chlorine are as follows:
PAR 1 1
Page 12
Permit No. COG - 604000
Method Method Detection Limit, mall
DPD colorimetric 0.10 mg/1
Amperometric titration 0.05 mg/1
If, during the life of this permit, there are improvements in approved analytical procedures that result in lower
detection limits, this permit may be reopened to propose the incorporation of those detection limits into this
permit. Modification of the permit will be in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 124.
4. Records
The permittee shall establish and maintain records. Those records shall include the following:
a. The date, type, exact location, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) the analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used;
f. The results of such analyses; and
g. Any other observations which may result in an impact on the quality or quantity of the discharge as indicated
in 40 CFR 122.44 (i)(1)(iii).
The permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years records of all monitoring information, including all original
strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, all calibration and maintenance records, copies of
all reports required by this permit and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit. This
period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of
pollutants by the pennittee or when requested by the Division or EPA.
5. Signatory and Certification Requirements
a. All reports and other information (including BMP Management Plans) required by the Division, shall be
signed and certified for accuracy by the permittee in accord with the following criteria:
i) In the case of corporations, by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-president or his or
her duly authorized representative, if such representative is responsible for the overall operation of the
facility from which the discharge described in the form originates;
ii) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner,
In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor;
iv) In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer, ranking
elected official, or other duly authorized employee.
b. All reports required by permits, and other information requested by the Division shall be signed by a person
as described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized
representative only if:
i) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
ii) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a
well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having
overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position); and,
iii) The written authorization is submitted to the Division.
If an authorization as described in this section is no longer accurate because a different individual or position
has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of
this section must be submitted to the Division prior to or together with any reports, information, or
applications to be signed by an authorized representative.
The permittee, or the duly authorized representative shall make and sign the following certification on all
such documents:
Page 13
Permit No. COG - 604000
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
PART II
Page 14
Permit No. COG - 601000
PART II
A. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
1. Notification to Partied
All notification requirements under this section shall be directed as follows:
a. Oral Notifications, other than for spills, durins normal business hours shall be to:
Industrial Compliance Officer
Water Quality Control Division
Telephone: (303) 692 -3500
Spills notifications at any time and other notifications after hours shall be to :
Environmental Release and Incident Reporting Line
Telephone: (877) 518 -5608
b. Written notification shall be to
Industrial Compliance Officer
Water Quality Control Division
WQCD - CWCA -B2
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246 -1530
2. Change in Discharge
The pennittee shall notify the Division, in writing, of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility.
For non -fixed facilities, the permittee shall notify the Division of any changes to the discharge, such as additional discharge
points, a change in the discharge flow, etc. The Division, upon review of the submitted materials will amend the certification
to discharge_ Authorization for the change in discharge is not effective until the amended certification is issued. Notice is
required only when the alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged, or;
The ermittee shall give advance notice to the Division of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may
result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
Whenever notification of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility is required pursuant to this
section„ the permittee shall famish the Division such plans and specifications which the Division deems reasonably necessary
to evaluate the effect on the discharge, the stream, or ground water. If the Division finds that such new or altered discharge
might be inconsistent with the conditions of the permit, the Division shall require a new or revised permit application and
shall follow the procedures specified in Sections 61.5 through 61.6, and 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
3. Special Notifications - Definitions
a. Bypass: The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
b. Severe Property Damage: Substantial physical damage to property at the treatment facilities which causes them to
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in
the absence of a bypass. It does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
c. Spill: An incident in which flows or solid materials are accidentally or unintentionally allowed to flow or escape so as to
be lost from the treatment, processing or manufacturing system which may cause or threaten pollution of State Waters.
d. Upset: An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance
to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of
preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
4. Noncompliance Notification
a. If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any discharge limitations or
standards specified in this permit, the petnzittee shall, at a minimum, provide the Division and EPA with the following
information:
PART 11
Page 15
Permit No. COG - 601000
i) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance;
ii) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times and/or the anticipated time when the discharge will
return to compliance; and
iii) Steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge.
b. The permittee shall report the following circumstances orally within twenty -four hour from the time the permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances, and shall mail to the Division a written report containing the information requested
in Part ll.A.4 (a) within five days after becoming aware of the following circumstances:
i) Circumstances leading to any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment regardless of the cause
of the incident;
ii) Circumstances leading to any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitations in the permit;
iii) Circumstances leading to any upset or spill which causes an exceedance of any effluent limitation m the permit;
iv) Daily maximum violations for any of the pollutants limited by Part LA of this permit and specified as requiring 24-
hour notification. This includes any toxic pollutant or hazardous substance or any pollutant specifically identified as
the method to control any toxic pollutant or hazardous substance.
c. The permittee shall report instances of non - compliance which are not required to be reported within 24 -hours at the time
Discharge Monitoring Reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in sub - paragraph (a) of this
section.
5 Qther Notification Requires ents
Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any
compliance schedule in the permit shall be submitted no later than fourteen (14) days following each scheduled date, unless
otherwise provided by the Division.
The permittee shall notify the Division, in writing, thirty days in advance of a proposed transfer of permit as provided in Part
11.B.3.
The permittee's notification of all anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
All existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers must notify the Division as soon as-they know
or have reason to believe:
a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any
toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification
levels ':
i) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/1);
ii) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/1) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500
ug/1) for 2.4- dinitrophenol and 2- methyl- 4.6- dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter (1.0 mg/l) for antimony;
iii) Five tunes the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with
Section 61.4(2xg).
iv) The level established by the Division in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.44(f).
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non - routine or infrequent basis, of
a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification
levels ":
i) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/l);
ii) One milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony; and
iii) Ten (10) tines the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
iv) The level established by the Division in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.44(f).
PART II
Page 16
Permit No. COG - 601000
6. Bypass Notification
If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, a notice shall be submitted, at least ten days before the date of the
bypass, to the Division. The bypass shall be subject to Division approval and limitations imposed by the Division. Violations
of requirements imposed by the Division will constitute a violation of this permit.
7. Upsets
a. Effect of an Upset
An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with permit effluent limitations if the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to
judicial review.
b. Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset
A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate through properly signed
contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
i) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset and
ii) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated and maintained; and
iii) The permittee submitted proper notice of the upset as required in Part II.A.4. of this pennit (24 -hour notice); and
iv) The permittee complied with any remedial measure necessary to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or
disposal in violation of this permit which has a reason able likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
In addition to the demonstration required above, a permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset for a
violation of effluent limitations based upon water quality standards shall also demonstrate through monitoring, modeling
or other methods that the relevant standards were achieved in the receiving water.
c. Burden of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof.
8. Discharge Point
Any discharge to the waters of the State from a point source other than specifically authorized by this permit is prohibited.
9. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee as necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this
permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance and adequate laboratory and process controlsz
including appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back -up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems which are installed by the permittee only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
10. Minimization of Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge of sludge use or disposal in violation of this
permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. As necessary, accelerated
or additional monitoring to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge is required.
11, Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed in
accordance with applicable state and federal regulations.
Where applicable, the permittee shall dispose of sludge in accordance with all State and Federal regulations.
12. Submission of Incorrect or Inconlete Information
Where the permittee failed to submit any relevant facts in'a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit
application or report to the Division, the permittee shall promptly submit the relevant information which was not submitted or
PART II
Page 17
Permit No. COG- 601000
any additional information needed to correct any erroneous information previously submitted. The 30 days the Division has
to process the permit will be put on hold until all additional information is submitted.
13. Bypass
a. Bypasses are prohibited and the Division may take enforcement action against the permittee for bypass, unless:
i) The bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
ii) There were no feasible alternatives to bypass such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated
wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate
back -up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
iii) Proper notices were submitted in compliance with Part II.A.4.
b. "Severe property damage" as used in this Subsection means substantial physical damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be
expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in
production.
c. The permittee may allow a bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is
for essential maintenance or to assure optimal operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of paragraph
(a) above.
The Division may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering adverse effects, if the Division determines that the
bypass will meet the conditions specified in paragraph (a) above.
d.
14. Reduction, Loss. or Failure of Treatment Facility
The permittee has the duty to halt or reduce any activity if necessary to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations of
the permit. Upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, the permittee shall, to the extent necessary to maintain
compliance wth its permit, control production, control sources of wastewater, or all discharges, until the facility is restored or
an alternative method of treatment is provided. This provision also applies to power failures, unless an alternative power
source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities is provided.
It shall not be a defense for a perrnittee in an enforcement action that it would be necessary to halt or reduce the permitted
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Inspections and Right to Entry .
The pennittee shall allow the Division and/or the authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or in which any records are
required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this
permit and to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in the permit; and
c. To enter upon the permittee's premises in a reasonable manner and at a reasonable time to inspect and /or investigate, any
actual, suspected, or potential source of water pollution, or to ascertain compliance or non compliance with the Colorado
Water Quality Control Act or any other applicable state or federal statute or regulation or any order promulgated by the
Division. The investigation may include, but is not limited to, the following: sampling of any discharge and/or process
waters, the taking of photographs, interviewing of any person having knowledge related to the discharge permit or alleged
violation, access to any and all facilities or areas within the permittee's premises that may have any affect on the
discharge, permit, or alleged violation. Such entry is also authorized for the purpose of inspecting and copying records
required to be kept concerning any effluent source.
d. The permittee shall provide access to the Division to sample the discharge at a point after the final treatment process but
prior to the discharge mixing with State Waters upon presentation of proper credentials.
In the making of such inspections, investigationt, and determinations, the Division, insofar as practicable, may designate as its
authorized representatives any qualified personnel of the Department of Agriculture. The Division may also request
assistance from any other state or Local agency or institution.
PART 11
Page 18
Permit No. COG - 601000
2. Dutv to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Division, within a reasonable time, any information which the Division may request to
determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance
with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Division, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this
permit.
3. Transfer ofQwnership or Control
a. Except as provided in paragraph b. of this section, a permit may be transferred by a permittee only if the permit has been
modified or revoked and reissued as provided in Section 61.8(8) of the Colorado Discharge Permit Systern_Re ulations,
to identify the new permittee and to incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the Federal Act.
b. A permit may be automatically transferred to a new permittee
i) The current permittee notifies the Division in writing 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date; and
ii) The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new permittee(s) containing a specific date for
transfer of permit responsibility, coverage and liability between them; and
iii) The Division does not notify the existing permittee and the proposed new permittee of its intent to modify, or revoke
and reissue the permit.
iv) Fee requirements of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, Section 61.15, have been met.
4. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Colorado Discharge
Peon t Svstem_Regulations 5 CCR 1002 -61, Section 61.5(4), all reports prepared in accordance with the teens of this permit
shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Division and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The name and address of the permit applicant(s) and permittee(s), permit applications, permits and effluent data shall not be
considered confidential. Knowingly making false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal
penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Federal CIean Water Act, and Section 25 -8 -610 C.R.S.
5. Modification. Suspension. Revocation. or Termination of Pennits By the Division
The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, termination or a notification of
planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
a. A permit may be modified, suspended, or terminated in whole or in part during its tern for reasons determined by the
Division including, but not limited to, the following:
i) Violation of any teens or conditions of' the permit;
ii) Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failing to disclose any fact which is material to the granting or denial of a
permit or to the establishment often= or conditions of the permit; or
iii) Materially false or inaccurate statements or information in the pemnit application or the permit.
iv) A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the classified or existing uses of State Waters
and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by permit modifications or termination.
b. A permit may be modified in whole or in part for the following causes, provided that such modification complies with the
provisions of Section 61.10 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations:
i) There are material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility or activity which occurred after
permit issuance which justify the application of permit conditions that are different or absent in the existing permit.
ii) The Division has received new information which was not available at the time of permit issuance (other than revised
regulations, guidance, or test methods) and which would have justified the application of different permit conditions
at the time of issuance. For permits issued to new sources or new dischargers, this cause includes information
derived from effluent testing required under Section 61.4(7Xe) of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations. This provision allows a modification of the permit to include conditions that are Iess stringent than the
existing permit only to the extent allowed under Section 61.10 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
PART II
Page 19
Permit No. COG - 601000
iii) The standards or regulations on which the permit was based have been changed by promulgation of amended
standards or regulations or by judicial decision after the permit was issued. Permits may be modified during their
terms for this cause only as follows:
(A) The permit condition requested to be modified was based on a promulgated effluent Iimitation guideline, EPA
approved water quality standard, or an effluent limitation set forth in 5 CCR 1002 -62, § 62 et seq.; and
(B) EPA has revised, withdrawn, or modified that portion of the regulation or effluent limitation guideline on which
the permit condition was based, or has approved a Commission action with respect to the water quality standard
or effluent limitation on which the permit condition was based; and
(C) The permittee requests modification after the notice of final action by which the EPA effluent limitation
guideline, water quality standard, or effluent limitation is revised, withdrawn, or modified; or
(D) For judicial decisions, a court of competent jurisdiction has remanded and stayed EPA promulgated regulations
or effluent limitation guidelines, if the remand and stay concern that portion of the regulations or guidelines on
which the permit condition was based and a request is filed by the permittee in accordance with this Regulation,
within ninety (90) days of judicial remand.
iv) The Division determines that good cause exists to modify a permit condition because of events over which the
permittee has no control and for which there is no reasonable available remedy.
v) The permittee has received a variance.
vi) When required to incorporate applicable toxic effluent limitation or standards adopted pursuant to § 307(a) of the
Federal act.
vii) When required by the reopener conditions in the permit.
viii) When the level of discharge of any pollutant which is not limited in the permit exceeds the level which can be
achieved by the technology -based treatment requirements appropriate to the permittee under Section 61.8(2) of the
Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations.
ix) To establish a pollutant notification level required in Section 61.8(5) of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
x) To correct technical mistakes, such as errors in calculation, or mistaken interpretations of law made in determining
permit conditions, to the extent allowed in Section 61.10 of the Colorado State Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
xi) For any other cause provided in Section 61.10 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations.
c. At the request of a permittee, the Division may modify or terminate a permit and issue a new permit if the following
conditions are met:
i) The Regional Administrator has been notified of the proposed modification or termination and does not object in
writing within thirty days of receipt of notification,
ii) The Division finds that the permittee has shown reasonable grounds consistent with the Federal and State statutes
and regulations for such modifications or termination;
iii) Requirements of Section 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations have been met, and
iv) Requirements of public notice have been met.
d. Permit modification (except for minor modifications), termination or revocation and reissuance actions shall be subject to
the requirements of Sections 61.5(2), 61.5(3), 61.6, 61.7 and 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations. The Division shall act on a permit modification request, other than minor modification requests, within 180
days of receipt thereof. Except for minor modifications, the terms of the existing permit govern and are enforceable until
the newly issued permit is formally modified or revoked and reissued following public notice.
e. Upon consent by the permittee, the Division may make minor permit modifications without following the requirements of
Sections 61.5(2), 61.5(3), 61.7, and 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations. Minor modifications to
permits are limited to
i) Correcting typographical errors; or
ii) Increasing the frequency of monitoring or reporting by the permittee; or
PART 11
Page 20
Permit No. COG - 601000
iii) Changing an interim date in a schedule of compliance, provided the new date of compliance is not more than 120
days after the date specific in the existing permit and does not interfere with attainment of the final compliance date
requirement; or
iv) Allowing for a transfer in ownership or operational control of a facility where the Division determines that no other
change in the permit is necessary, provided that a written agreement containing a specific dale for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage and liability between the current and new pemiittees has been submitted to the Division; or
v) Changing the construction schedule for a discharger which is a new source, but no such change shall affect a
discharger's obligation to have all pollution control equipment installed and in operation prior to discharge; or
vi) Deleting a point source outfall when the discharge from that outfall is terminated and does not result in discharge of
pollutants from other outfalls except in accordance with permit limits.
f. When a permit is modified, only the conditions subject to modification are reopened. if a permit is revoked and reissued,
the entire permit is reopened and subject to revision and the permit is reissued for a new term.
The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance or termination does not stay
any permit condition.
8•
h. All permit modifications and reissuances are subject to the antibacksliding provisions set forth in 61.10(e) through (g).
6. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject to under Section 311 (Oil and Hazardous
Substance Liability) of the Clean Water Act.
7. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority granted
by Section 510 of the Clean Water Act.
8. permit Violations
Failure to comply with any terms and/or conditions of this pemmit shall be a violation of this permit. The discharge of any
pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of
the permit.
9. Prapry Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property or water rights in either real or personal property, or stream flows,
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
10. Severabilitv
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provisions of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the application of the
remainder of this permit shall not be affected.
11. Renewal Application
lithe permittee desires to continue to discharge, a permit renewal application shall be submitted at least one hundred and
eighty (180) days before this permit expires. If the permittee anticipates there will be no discharge after the expiration date of
this permit, the Division should be promptly notified so that it can terminate the permit in accordance with Part II.B.5.
12. Termination of Permit
Effective July 1, 2007, legislation (HE 07 -1329) removed the option for issuance of short-term certifications. Thus, when
activities requiring permit coverage are complete, the permittee can initiate the termination of their permit by sending in a
letter to the Division requesting permit termination. DMRs must be submitted to the Division until the termination process is
complete.
PART 11
Page 21
Permit No, COG - 601000
13. Confidentiality
Any information relating to any secret process, method of manufacture or production, or sales or marketing data which has
been declared confidential by the.pernuttee, and which may be acquired, ascertained, or discovered, whether in any sampling
investigation, emergency investigation, or otherwise, shall not be publicly disclosed by any member, officer, or employee of
the Commission or the Division, but shall be kept confidential. Any person seeking to invoke the protection of this
Subsection (12) shall bear the burden of proving its applicability. This section shall never be interpreted as preventing full
disclosure of effluent data.
14. Fees
The permittee is required to submit payment of an annual fee as set forth in the 2007 amendments to the Water Osiality
Control Act. Section 25 -8 -502 (1) (b), and the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations 5 CCR 1002 -61, Section 61.15
as amended. Failure to submit the required fee when due and payable is a violation of the permit and will result in
enforcement action pursuant to Section 25 -8.601 et. seq., C.R.S. 1973 as amended.
15. Duration of Permit
The duration of a permit shall be for a fixed term and shall not exceed five years. Filing of a timely and complete application
shall cause the expired permit to continue in force to the effective date of the new permit. The permit's duration may be
extended only through administrative extensions and not through interim modifications.
16. Section 307 Toxics
If a toxic effluent standard or prohibition, including any applicable schedule of compliance specified, is established by
regulation pursuant to Section 307 of the Federal Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the permittee's discharge and
such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation upon such pollutant in the discharge permit, the Division
shall institute proceedings to modify or revoke and reissue the permit to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition.
17. Antibacksliding
a. A permit may not be renewed, reissued, or modified to contain effluent limitations adopted pursuant to Section 25-8 -
503(1)(b) (BPJ) of the Water Ouality Control Act, which are less stringent than the comparable effluent limitations or
standards in the previous permit, unless any one of the following exceptions is met and the conditions of paragraph (c) of
this section are met;
i) Material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility occurred after permit issuance which justify
the application of less stringent effluent limitations; or
ii) Information is available which was not available at the time of permit issuance (other than revised regulations,
guidance, or test methods) and which would have justified the application of a less stringent effluent limitation or
standard at the time of permit issuance; or
iii) The Division determines that technical mistakes or mistaken interpretations of law were made in issuing the permit,
which justified relaxation of the effluent limitations or standards; or
iv) A less stringent effluent limitation or standard is necessary because of events over which the pennittee has no control
and for which there is not reasonable available remedy; or
v) The permittee has received a permit variance; or
vi) The permittee has installed the treatment facilities required to meet the effluent limitations in the previous permit and
has properly operated and maintained the facilities but has nevertheless been unable to achieve the previous effluent
limitations, in which case, the limitations in the renewed, reissued, or modified permit may reflect the level of
pollutant control actually achieved (but shall not be less stringent than required by effluent guidelines in effect at the
time of permit renewal, reissuance, or modification).
b. A permit may not be renewed, reissued, or modified to contain effluent limitations adopted pursuant to 61.8(2(b) or (c) of
the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations that are less stringent than the comparable effluent limitations in the
previous permit, unless any of the exceptions provided herein is met and the conditions of paragraph c. of this section are
met.
i) In waters where the applicable water quality standard has not yet been attained, effluent limitations based on a total
maximum daily load or other waste load allocation may be revised to be less stringent if the cumulative effect of all
such revisions assures attainment of such water quality standard, or the designated use which is not being attained is
removed in accordance with Section 31.6 of the Basic Standards.
ii) In waters where the applicable water quality standard has been attained, effluent limitations based on a total
maximum daily load, other waste load allocation, or any other permitting standard (including any water quality
4
PART 11
Page 22
Permit No. COG - 601000
standard) may be revised to be less stringent if such revision is subject to and consistent with the antidegradation
provisions of Section 31.8 of the Basic Standards. Consistency with Section 31.8 shall be presumed if the waters in
question have been designated by the Commission as "use protected"; or
iii) Whether or not the applicable water quality standard has been attained:
(A) Material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility occurred after permit issuance which
justified the application of less stringent effluent limitations; or
(B) A less stringent effluent limitation is necessary because of events over which the permittee has no control and
for which there is not reasonable available remedy; or
(C) The pennittee has received a permit variance; or
(D) The pennittee has installed the treatment facilities required to meet the effluent limitations in the previous permit
and has properly operated and maintained the facilities but has nevertheless been unable to achieve the previous
effluent limitations, in which case, the limitations in the reviewed, reissued, or modified permit may reflect the
level of pollutant control actually achieved (but shall not be less stringent than required by effluent guidelines in
effect at the time ofpermit renewal, reissuance, or modification).
c. In no event may a permit with respect to which paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply be renewed, reissued, or
modified to contain an effluent limitation or standard which is less stringent than required by federal effluent guidelines
in effect at the time the permit is renewed, reissued, or modified. In no event may such a permit to discharge into State
Waters be renewed, reissued, or modified to contain a less stringent effluent limitation if the implementation of such
limitation would result in a violation of an applicable water quality standard.
18. Effect of Permit Issuance
a. The issuance of a permit does not convey any property rights or any exclusive privilege.
b. The issuance of a permit does not authorize any injury to person or property or any invasion of personal rights, nor does
it authorize the infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
c. Except for any toxic effluent standard or prohibition imposed under Section 307 of the Federal act or any standard for
sewage sludge use or disposal under Section 405(d) of the Federal act, compliance with a permit during its term
constitutes compliance, for purposes of enforcement, with Sections 301, 302, 306, 318, 403, and 405(a) and (b) of the
Federal act. However, a permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated during its tens for cause as set
forth in Section 61.8(8) of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations.
d. Compliance with a permit condition which implements a particular standard for sewage sludge use or disposal shall be an
affirmative defense in any enforcement action brought for a violation of that standard for sewage sludge use or disposal.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT . Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 1, Permit No COG- 604000
RATIONALE
DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF
GAS OR PETROLEUM PIPELINES, STORAGE TANKS, AND SIMILAR VESSELS
GENERAL PERMIT IN COLORADO
FIRST ISSUE
CDPS PERMIT NUMBER COG - 604000
L STATUS
This is the first separate general permit for discharges associated with hydrostatic testing of gas or petroleum pipelines, storage
tanks, and similar vessels. Previously these discharges were covered, as categories, under the Minimum Industrial Discharge
(MINDI) general permit (COG - 600000). This change was made to provide more specific limitations for this category and support
efficiency in the development of certifications.
II. TYPES OF DISCHARGES COVERED
Scope ofA General Permit
The general permit provides coverage for types of discharges that can be characterized as: an Intermittent or temporary
discharge, containing concentrations of pollutants of concern that pose low risk to impairing receiving water quality, and possess
minimal toxicity. Long -term or continuous discharges may require coverage under an individual permit.
The effluent limits are based on the water - quality standards for the receiving water and, thus, are protective of the designated
beneficial uses. All minimal discharge general permits contain narrative limitations and exclusions in common (see Part LB.1. of
the permit). Additions to the numeric limitations and monitoring requirements may occur on a site - specific basis after review of
facility information and The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (Regulation No. 31) and/or the Basic
Standards for Ground Water (Regulation No.41) . The scope of this permit does include discharges to land (with the potential to
enter groundwater) that are not subject to the jurisdiction of an implementing state agency., Every certification will include one or
more tables that speck the limitations and monitoring requirements that apply to the discharge. Dischargers that do not fit under
this characterization and /or possess highly toxic chemicals in elevated concentrations should apply for coverage under an
individual permit.
Exceptions to numeric effluent requirements can exist where the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is sufficient
to protect water quality and the inclusion of additional requirements (i.e., numeric limits, monitoring of effluent) is not necessary.
This shall only be applicable when the pipelines and vessels being tested are new, no additives are added to the source water, the
flow rate is minimal, the permittee doesn't have a history of non - compliance, and the discharge is not to a 303 (d) listed segment
for pollutants of concern (see Regulation No. 93, Section 303(dl List Water - Quality- Limited Segments ReauirinR TMDLs. The
permittee will be required to create a BMP Plan. The decision whether numeric effluent limits will apply or if the discharge can
occur under the implementation of a BMP Management Plan will be specified in the certification to discharge. See. section I.B.3.
and 1.B.4 of the General Pennitfor BMP Management Plan details.
Scope of This General Permit
This general permit (COG- 601000) authorizes discharges from; hydrostatic testing of new and existing gas or petroleum
pipelines, storage tanks, and similar vessels. For this permit, hydrostatic testing, also, includes flushing.
The periodic testing activity.is conducted for one of two reasons. First, the testing is done to meet an internal requirement of the
operator. Second, the testing is done to meet the requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR I92, Subpart J
— Test Requirements) and in accord with Section 192.515 (b) — "the operator shall insure that the test medium is disposed of in a
manner that will minimize damage to the environment': Discharges of hydrostatic test water may originate from a variety of
facilities, including but not limited to — gathering or transmission pipelines, natural gas liquid extraction plants, natural gas
processing plants, gas compressor stations, refineries, petrochemical manufacturing plants. Discharges to groundwater(within
site boundaries) will not be covered under this general permit, if the facility is subject to the jurisdiction of an implementing
agency (le., Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Colorado Division of 011 and Public Safety).
This general permit does not apply to pipelines for treated -water transport, since this hydrotesting is already covered under a
concurrent general permit (i.e., Discharges Associated with Treated Water Distribution Systems, COG - 380000).
Characteristics of Discharge
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 2 Permit No. COG - 604000
The general characteristics of the expected discharge are presented below and are used by the permit writer to determine
availability of coverage under this general permit.
Source Water Source water used in hydrostatic testing may come from a variety of sources — rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wells,
and drinking water supplies. When Me source water is obtained from a drinking water supply, residual chlorine is a pollutant of
concern and the Division has included effluent limits (numeric or narrative) to control this pollutant on the basis that there is
reasonable potential for the discharge to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality standard . When the source
water is obtained from a river, stream, lake, or pond, and the discharge is not to a 303(d) listed segment, the Division has
determined there is no reasonable potential for the pollutants in the source water to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a
water quality standard on the basis that the discharge is intermittent or temporary, and that concentrations of pollutants will not
be increased during the use of the water. An additional reasonable potential analysis will be conducted for discharges to 303(d)
listed waters to determine if site - specific effluent limits are required or the discharge may be more appropriately covered under
an individual permit. When the source water is groundwater, only discharges of "uncontaminated "groundwater will be
authorized. Contaminated groundwater may include that contaminated with pollutants from a landfill, mining activity, industrial
pollutant plume, underground storage tank, or other source of human - caused groundwater pollution and exceeding the State
groundwater standards in Regulations 5 CCR 1002 -41 and 42. The Division will review information provided in the application
to determine whether the source water is uncontaminated. The Division has determined that there is no reasonable potential for
naturally occurring constituents in uncontaminated groundwater to cause or contribute to exceedance of a water quality
standard on the basis that the levels will not exceed State groundwater standards and the discharge is intermittent or temporary.
The Division, may on a case -by -case basis where there is evidence that the groundwater has naturally high levels of constituents
potentially harmful to aquatic life, conduct an additional reasonable potential analysis and include a site - specific effluent limit in
the certification. It is assumed that toxic chemical additives (i.e., corrosion inhibitors, antifreeze, biocides) will not be added to
the source water.
Low - Volume Batch Discharge Hydrostatic testing is generally performed by sealing the equipment, piping or vessel to be tested
and providing a water fill location. After the equipment, piping or vessel is full, the pressure is increased to the desired level
using a high pressure pump system and then held at pressure for several hours (in some cases, hydrostatic testing may be
performed at atmospheric pressure). Following the test, the pressure is released and the equipment, piping or vessel is drained by
gravity flow, pumping, or air pressure. In some cases, the discharge is collected in a tank for testing and/or treatment prior to
discharge to the water body. Hydrostatic test water discharges are, therefore, batch discharges with a short -term duration.
Typical volumes per test range from 10,00010 50,000 gallons. However, if the total discharge is expected to be 1,000,000 gallons
or greater, then an individual permit may be required (contact permit writer).
Residue, Residue in the pipeline may contribute to the pollutants of concern in the discharge from the hydrostatic testing. New
structures should be relatively free of potential pollutants but may include— construction debris, suspended solids from soil,
welding solids, lubricating oils, and pH. Existing structures may contain residues from natural gas, hydrocarbon condensates,
and petroleum products (Le., benzene, toluene, and xylenes). Therefore, Me Division has made a qualitative determination of
reasonable potential for petroleum sources and iron from the pipelines and has included the applicable water quality standards
for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and total recoverable and dissolved iron as later described.
Receiving Water. Division decisions on coverage under this general permit considers the following conditions:
This general permit does not provide coverage for discharges to a water body with the designation of "outstanding waters".
Discharge to a stormwater conveyance system is not expected to be a common event, given the expected right -of -way setting of the
pipelines. However, this general permit can provide coverage, if the owner of the conveyance system is contacted by the permittee
prior to discharge and complies with the owners' ordinances, regulations, and additional requirements. Further, the permittee
should provide the owner- prior to actual discharge- specific information on times and locations of expected discharges.
Discharges to impaired water are allowed since the effluent limits are equal to the water- quality standards and the discharge is
expected to be short -term or intermittent.
111. PERMIT CONDITIONS
Numeric effluent limitations (Tables 1 and 2 and Part 1.B.2. of the permit) are imposed for pollutants that are specific to the types of
discharges. Since each type is a batch discharge, the limitations can be expressed in terms of a daily maximum concentration - as
allowed under 40 CFR 122.45 (e) and (f9. A professional decision is made to use the 30 -day average, if the parameter does not
have a daily maximum value in Regulation No. 31.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 3, Permit No. COG - 604000
Table 1. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for New Pipelines, Tanks, or Other Similar Vessels
Effluent Parameter
Discharge Limitation
Daily Maximum
Monitoring Frequency'
Sample Type
Flow, gpm
Report'
NA
NA
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
30
2X/discharge
Grab
Oil and Grease, mg/11
10
2X/discharge
Visual/Grab
pH, s.u.
6.5 - 9.0
2X/discharge
In -situ
Iran, Dissolved, mg/l
0.3
2X/discharge
Grab
Site - specific`
0,3
2X/discharge
Grab
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1
0.019
2X/discharge
In -situ
Other Pollutants, units
Limit
2Xldischarge
Grab
Other Pollutants, units
Report
2X/discharge
Grab
Total Dissolved Solids, mg /lg
Report
2,X/discharge
Grab
Total Phosphorus, mg/11
0.05
2X/discharge
Grab
Total Phosphorus, mg/le
Report
2X/discharge
Grab
Table 2. Effluent Limitations and Monitoringe Reauirements for Used Pipelines. Tanks. or Other Similar Vessels
Effluent Parameter
Discharge Limitation
Daily Maximum
Monitoring Frequency'
Sample Type
Flow, Rpm
Report'
NA
NA
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
30
2X/discharge
Grab
Oil and Grease, mg/It
10
2X/discharge
Visual/Grab
pH, s.u.,
6.5 - 9.0
2X/discharge
In situ
Iron, Total Recoverable, mg/l
1.0
2X/discharge
Grab
Iron, Dissolved , mg/1
0,3
2X/discharge
Grab
Sint -spec f c4
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1
0.019
2X/discharge .
In -situ
Benzene, mg/1
0.0022
2X/discharge
Grab
Toluene, mg/1
1.0
2X/discharge
Grab
Ehtylbenzene, ingil
0.530
2X/discharge
Grab
Xylenes, mg4
1.4
2X/discharge
Grab
Other Pollutants, units
Limit
2Xldischarge
Grab
Other Pollutants, units
Report
2X/discharge
Grab
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/$
Report
2X/discharge
Grab
Total Phosphorus, mg/12
0.05
2X/discharge
Grab
Total Phosphorus, m
Report
2X/discharge
Grab
3
4
5
6
Samples will be taken during the first and last hour of discharge. If the discharge is less than an hour, then the samples will be
collected during the first and last 15 minutes of discharge. The sample point will be immediately following the discharge from
the pipeline or vessel. if the discharge is going through BMPs then sampling shall occur after such BMP treatment and prior to
discharge to waters of the state. If the same hydrotesting program is conducted at discrete locations along an extensive pipeline,
then the monitoring frequency can be adjusted on a site - specific basis with support for this decision provided in the certification. For
example, once the 2X/discharge monitoring is completed on the first two tested pipeline segments and evaluated, then the subsequent
monitoring efforts may be reduced to IX/discharge.
Flow can be measured with a recorder or determined from estimates based on volume of fill water, dimension of the pipeline, or
volume of vessel filled with water.
There shall be no visible sheen. If a visible sheen is detected a grab sample is required.
Limits will be established on a site - specific basis for additional parameters based on an assessment of the submitted information
and results of discussions with permittee by the permit writer. The rationale used for site - specific limitations will be presented in
the certification. If the source water is from a drinking water supply, then total residual chlorine monitoring is required.
If the pipeline or vessels is expected to contain residual of petrochemical products, then BTEX monitoring is required.
Other pollutants may be added based on a discharge to an impaired water body and/or based on pollutant of concern
determination resulting from nature of the source water, source water additives, and /or residues in the pipeline or vessel.
Monitoring is required only for discharges within the Colorado River Basin
Monitoring and/or numeric effluent limits may apply to discharges to watersheds with a control regulation for Phosphorus.
a. Rezulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62) - Section 62.4 of the regulations includes effluent limitations that apply
to all discharges of wastewater to state waters. These regulations are the basis for Oil and Grease and Total Suspended Solids
limitations. These limits are the same as existed in the MIND! permit.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENY/RONMENT. Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 4. Permit No. COG - 604000
b. Technology -Based Limitations — No federal guidelines have been promulgated for this type offacility and none are expected.
Since most hydrostatic testing occurs within the petroleum industry, to determine if any residual from prior use is being
discharged, effluent limitations and monitoring for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzne, and xylene (see discussion in later
paragraphs) are required as these parameters are good indicators of the presence of petroleum constituents.
c. Water Quality Standard -based Limitations (Discharges to Surface Waters)
Water quality -based limits are imposed for pH, total residual chlorine (TRC), total recoverable iron and dissolved iron, and
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. The pH limits are the same as existed in the MINDI permit. The limits for TRC
are also the same as existed in the MINDlpermit with the exception that antidegradation -based limits are not applied (see
below). The total recoverable and dissolved iron limits are more stringent than in the MIND! permit because they are
based on the respective standards. The limit for benzene included in this permit is equal to the water - quality standard which
is a change from the MINDI permit.
1. — This parameter is limited by Water Quality Standards as the water quality standards of 6.5 -9.0 s.u. range are more
stringent than those specified under the Regulations for Effluent Limitations(Regulation No. 62)
Total Residua( Chlorine — The TRC limitations are equal to the most stringent standards found in Table II of The Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (Regulation No. 31). Effluent must be dechlorinated by chemical or
physical means prior to discharge to meet limitations. If chlorine is not present in any concentration in the source water
and none is added, the permit writer can exempt a permittee fronz TRC effluent limits and monitoring.
3. Total Recoverable and Dissolved Iron — Because iron in various forms can be present, dissolved iron and total
recoverable iron limits are imposed Both iron limitations will apply and are equal to most stringent standards found in
Table 111 of The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (Regulation No. 31). In this rationale and permit,
the standards in ug/1 have been included as limits in terms of mg/!.
4. ,benzene. Toluene, Xthvlbenzene. and Xvlene —Since most hydrostatic testing occurs within the petroleum industry, to
determine if any residual from prior use is being discharged, the effluent limitations and monitoring for benzene are
required as this parameter is a good indicator of the presence of petroleum constituents. The benzene, toluene,
ethylbenaene, and xylenes, limitations are the most stringent, petroleum - related standard found in the Basic Standards for
Organic Chemicals table in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (Regulation No. 31), and have
been converted from ug /1 to mg/!.
5. Other Pollutants Limitations and/or Monitoring -- The permit writer will review the application and determine if any
additional pollutants must be limited and/or monitored to protect the classified uses assigned to the receiving water. If
required, the permit writer will set these additional limitations equal to the appropriate water - quality standards. A flow
limit for each outfall is to be identified on each certification.
d. Chemicals — The application must include disclosure of chemicals that may be present on the interior surface of the pipeline,
tank, or vessel and/or that may be used as an additive in the hydrostatic test water. Also, the source and water quality of the
test water should be disclosed. This information is necessary in the assessment of possible coverage under this general
permit.
e. Salinity Requirements — All permit actions for discharges to surface waters in the Colorado River Basin must include salinity
monitoring. Accordingly, the permit writer will perform an analysis, as set out in the paragraphs that follow, to determine
which salinity requirements apply pursuant to the requirements of Section 61.8(2)(1) of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
RegulationsiRegulation No. 61). Multiple discharges coveredfrom a single facility are subject to the limitation that would
apply f there were a single discharge point.
In conformance with the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulation (Regulation No. 61) existing permits for discharges to
the Colorado River basin incorporate total dissolved solids (WS) as the monitoring parameter for compliance with the salinity
requirements. Electrical conductivity (EC) may be substituted for MS if a correlation exists between TDS and EC is established
for the discharge, based on 5 paired samples, and approval by the permit writer.
To ensure compliance with the regulations, the compliance staff will review the reported data that the facility will not discharge
more than 1 ton per day, or 365 tons/year. For facilities exceeding this threshold, a salinity report is required that includes
satisfactory demonstration by the permittee that it is not practicable to prevent the discharge of all salt The Division will decide
on this exception prior to the start ofdischarge and may require further actions by the permittee to reduce the salt load before
approval of the discharge.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 5, Permit No, COG - 604000
Based on the effluent data in the application from a new facility, the permit writer will make an assessment of the expected
salinity load in the discharge (from concurrent flows at all outfalls) and if less than 1 ton/day, the calculation will be
documented in the issued certification. if the load exceeds this level, then the discharge can not be authorized However, as
stated above, the Division can grant an exception. The sequence of discharges from hydrostatic testing of long pipelines or
several vessels is important to this assessment.
Because the discharges covered under this permit are short -term and usually once per location, two analyses for TDS are
normally required. The certification will indicate if additional salinity reporting requirements are waived and the basis for this
decision.
f Control Regulations -- Control regulations exist to place additional limits on discharges to surface waters in five watersheds --
Dillon Reservoir, Cherry Creek Reservoir, Chatfield Reservoir, Cheraw Lake, and Bear Creek Reservoir. The total available
wasteloads (Le., phosphorus) have been allocated in these regulations to various point and non -point sources that discharge on
these watersheds.
g.
Certifications for discharges to these watersheds may include limitations and/or monitoring requirements for the parameters
specified in the regulation. Since the discharges are expected to be short -term and contain levels of the control parameters equal
to or less than the concentrations in nearby ambient waters, these authorized loads are viewed as de minimus and not subject to
assignment under the above allocation process (i.e., see Section 72.2.12 of Regulation No. 72). The permit writer will briefly
state in the certification the reason, with supporting data, the basis for the de minmus decision, when the basin regulation does
not state that such industrial contributions are considered minimal.
Antidegradation As set out in ,TheBasicStantdards and Methodologies ofSurface Water Section 31.8(3)(c)(ii)(C), an
antidegradation analysis is required for all wagers not designated as Use Protected, except in cases where the regulated activity
will result in only temporary or short term changes in water quality. Discharges permitted under this general permit are
expected to be short -term or intermittent. With consideration that these discharges are of good quality and in accordance with
Section 31.8(3)(c)(ii)(C) of The Basic Standards and Methodologies For Surface Waters (Regulation No. 31), which exempts
regulated activities that result in only temporary or short -term changes in water quality, an antidegradation analysis is not
necessary.
h. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WE7) - WET testing is not a part of this permit. Discharges covered under this minimal discharge
general permit are judged to have minimal impact on the receiving waters; thus, these discharges are not expected to exhibit
whole effluent toxicity. lf an application shows that or if the permit writer determines that the proposed discharge may or will
exhibit whole effluent toxicity, an individual permit with effluent limitations and other permit conditions, including a WET limit
and monitoring, will be considered more suitable.
i.
j•
Mixing Tones - Under this general permit mixing zone regulations do not apply, since water - quality standards are applied as
the effluent limits(i.e., no dilution is allowed.).
Discharges to 303(d) listed waters - Since the effluent limits are equal to the water- quality standards and the discharge is
expected to be short -term or intermittent, the assumption is that the discharge will not further impair the quality of the receiving
water for the 303(d)- listed parameters.
k Discharges to Ground Water - Discharges permitted under this general permit may travel to groundwater via land application,
infiltration ponds or other approved means. pecause the standards for groundwater are based on water supply and agricultural
uses. which also apply to surface waters of the state, the Division has determined that discharges that are protective of surface
water standards are also protective of groundwater standards. unless a more stringent site .pecifrc groundwater standard has
been adopted. The Division will include a site specific limit in the certification or require coverage under an individual permit
as needed to implement more stringent site-specific groundwater standards. Certain discharges, due to proximity to alluvial
water associated with nearby surface flow, are considered to be hydrologically connected this surface flow and will be
considered a discharge to surface water.
Additionally, the permittee will need to demonstrate in the application by what method effluent is discharged to ground water,
and how and where effluent can be monitored prior to discharge to ground water. Since this is a general permit, it is not
practical to require that a permittee install ground water monitoring wells for compliance determination, all applicable effluent
limitations will be met prior to application to the land.
All mentioned above, there may be situations where the discharge can not be authorized, under the Division's jurisdiction, and a
certification can not be issued. in these instances, an applicant will need to contact another state agency.
PrQlect Coverage - Entities such as oil and gas pipeline companies frequently hydrostatically test several segments of pipeline
that extends across a large area. The permit writer has discretion to issue one certification that covers all discharges from a
single project when this is practical and avoids unnecessary repetitive certifications. When project coverage is issued, the
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENYIRONMENT. Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 6. Permit No COG-604000
permit writer will determine that all effluent limitations and monitoring requirements are appropriate for all covered discharges
to qual1fyfor project coverage.
IV APPLICATION
Dischargers can apply for coverage under this general permit once the permit is issued.
Holders of certifications under the administratively extended MIND! (COG - 600000) for hydrostatic testing will automatically be
transferred to this new general permit Their coverage under the MINDI will be transferred without a lapse of coverage (i.e.
discharging without a permit) and without loss offee payments. Incidentally, the annual fee for each of these general permits is $630,
effective July 1, 2007. The permittee will have 90 days, from the date of transfer, to comply with any new terms and conditions of
this general permit.
The Division will be terminating the MIND! permit (COG - 600000) in a few months.
Nicole Smith
June 22, 2007
V. PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS
During the extended public notice period (June 22 to July 27, 2007), written comments were received from
Public Service Company of Colorado
Wright Water Engineers Inc,
Colorado Stormwater Council
Keep It Clean Partnership
Chatfield Watershed Authority, and
Roxborough Park Metropolitan District.
The Division will provide copies of any written comments upon written request. Topical summaries of the comments by entity and
the response of the Division are provided below.
During the public notice period, the Division received numerous verbal requests to clarify that this general permit applies to
industrial pipelines and not to domestic pipelines for treated -water transport, since the hydrotesting of the latter pipelines is already
covered under another general permit (le., Discharges Associated with Treated Water Distribution Systems, COG 380000). This
clarification is made with added text in the rationale and permit. The detailed information is added under "11. Types of Discharges
Covered" in the rationale.
Public Service Company of Colorado. PSCo (dba Keel Energy)
Comment 1: The proposed monitoring frequency is based on the Division's Baseline Monitoring Frequency. Sample Tux. and
Reduced Monitoring FreQuency Policy for Industrial and Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities. This policy is not
applicable to the types of discharges covered under this permit which are expected to be short -term, not continuous,
and at numerous locations along a pipeline. PSCo recommends that the monitoring frequency be adjusted to reflect the
types of discharges this permit will cover, or provide language in the permit that the monitoring frequency will be
established on a case -by -case basis.
Response: The rationale has been revised because the monitoring frequency is not based on the policy referenced and
instead is specific to this general permit The low- volume batch discharge feature of hydrotesting is now spec f cally
addressed under Section II of the rationale. On this basis, the limitations are set to daily maximum values with
monitoring done twice per discharge event (see footnotes to Tables 1 and 2). This monitoring frequency should be
reasonable for the discharge events that are expected to occur with hydrotesting. If the same hydrotesting program is
conducted at discrete locations along an extensive pipeline, then the monitoring frequency can be adjusted on a site-
specific basis with support for this decision provided in the certification. For example, once the 2X/discharge
monitoring is completed on the first tested pipeline segment and evaluated, then the subsequent monitoring efforts may
be reduced to IX/discharge.
Comment 2: The rationale states that a flow limit for each outfall will be identified; however, the permit states that a flow limit
might apply. PSCo requests that the Division's intention be clarified, since these statements are inconsistent. Further,
the requirement for afow recorder is impossible to meet in most discharge situations and the flexibility stated in Part
I.B.2.e should be allowed.
Response: Consistent with the requirements of 5 CCR 1002- 61.8(2)(i), the permittee shall report the volume of water
discharged Footnote to the tables now indicates that the flow estimate can be derived using one of several methods.
The Division's intent is to have a reasonable estimate of the totalfow discharged as a result of the hydrotesting and
. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC REALM AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 7. Permit No. COG-604000
the assumption is made that the discharged volume will generally be in the range of20,000 to 50,000 gallons per test
and not exceed 1,000,000 gallons. The inconsistency is corrected
Comment 3: PSCO believes that the preparation of a Best Management Practices (BMP) plan is unnecessary and impractical given
the type and duration of the discharges. The key elements of a BMP are already addressed in other sections of the
permit or in sections of the application for a permit. For example, minimization of erosion is addressed as a narrative
limitation. PSCo suggests that answers to questions in the application include a short description of how a particular
concern will be addressed, as a practical Alternative to requiring the preparation of an entirely separate document.
Response. The permit has been clarified to indicate that a BMP Plan is only required when numeric effluent limits do
not apply. In these cases, the Division believes it will be important to have site-specific measures that will be used to
ensure the protection of water quality standards.
Comment 4. The permit requires quarterly reporting of routine monitoring data collected at the outfall. Since the discharges are
expected to be short -term and not continuous, this quarterly requirement is impractical. PSCo recommends that
monitoring data be reported to the Division by the 284 of the month following the discharge.
Response: Revisions are made to require monitoring 2X/discharge and monthly reporting by the 28th day of the month
following the discharge.
Comment 5: The option for a short -term certification is not available under the proposed permit. PSCo advocates the availability of
this option, since it is compatible with the short -term nature of the discharges and would not require the additional
paperwork of submitting quarterly "no discharge" reports for most of the 5 year period.
Response: Effective July 1, 2007, legislation (KB 07 -1329) removed the option for a short -term certification under
annual fees — "(T) Category 26 Minimal discharge of industrial or commercial wastewaters — general permit ". Thus,
once the testing is complete, the certification can be terminated to avoid the need to submit monthly DMRs for the
remainder of the general permit period, Termination of permit coverage needs to be initiated by the permittee.
Comment 6: The Division has 30 -days to review the application before deciding on issuance or denial of the certification. Given the
nature of the discharges i.e., short- duration, low toxicity, not chemically complex), PSCo asks that this review time be
shortened to 10 or 15 days to expedite the review process (such as is done with applications for the construction
stormwater permit).
Comment 7:
Response: The Division recognizes the importance of timely action on applications for certifications under general
permits and makes an effort to reach a decision within two weeks, especially if the permittee has initiated contact with
the permit writer before submitting the application and discussed the nature of the project and basis for urgent action.
The Division will continue to informally expedite the review process to meet the needs ofpermiuees when possible;
however, the option for the 30-day review period is needed since the Division encounters unexpected periods of
excessive workload and can not maintain the shorter response time.
Part 1.4.3 of the permit indicates that projects within a geographic area may obtain blanket coverage, but there is no
supporting explanation as to why project must be in the same geographic area. PSCo would like to obtain statewide
coverage for discharges from testing of existing pipelines and not be restricted to coverage by geographic area.
Response: Since a geographic area can be defined as an area within the boundaries of the state, statewide coverage is
available for certifications under this general permit. If this option is exercised in the certification, the decision and
supporting reasoning is to be provided in the rationale (see Project Coverage). The Division has issued numerous
certifications with statewide coverage.
Comment 8: Since the effluent limits are to be equal to the water - quality standards, the assumption can be made that the discharge
will not impair the quality of the receiving water for the 303(d) listed parameters. On this basis, PSCo believes that
footnote 3 to the table addressing limitations and monitoring requirements for testing of used pipelines should be
deleted.
Response: The footnote has been revised and indicates that additional parameters will be added, if the discharge
contain as the same pollutant of concern that is the basis for listing the receiving water as impaired. On this basis other
limits, equal to the water - quality standard, will be added if the permit writer decides this is needed to protect water
quality.
Comment 9: The rationale states that one salinity sample is required; however, the permit states that monthly samples will be taken
for six months. PSCo requests clarification on the salinity sampling requirement. Further, PSCo supports the
requirement for one sample is collected per discharge.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 8. Permit No. COG- 604900
Response: The 2x/discharge monitoring requirement applies to salinity and will be included for those discharges to
waters of the Colorado River watershed Since this measurement can be obtained with the use of an inexpensive hand-
held electronic instrument (i.e., conductivity meter), this requirement should be attainable. However, the correlation
between TDS and EC must be shown by paired analysis of S samples before the EC measure can be used instead of
TDS.
Comment 10: PSCo recommends that only the definitions utilized in the rationale and permit be included in the definition section.
Response: The Division uses a standard boilerplate for permit documents which includes a set of definitions for
common terms used in permits. The effort to adjust this list for each permit action is not warranted, given the limited
resources of the Division and the lack of key negative consequences if additional definitions are provided.
Wright Water Engineers. Inc. (WWE)
Comment 11: WWE believes that weekly rather than 3-days-per-week sampling is adequate for short -term discharges authorized
under this general permit.
Comment 12:
Response: The Division reconsidered the sampling frequency and made a revision (refer to response to Comment 1).
WWE believes that the requirement for allow measurement device is not necessary and suitable simple options are
available (i.e., bucket and stopwatch, volume of water is known, estimates based on pipeline dimensions).
Response: The Division agrees and acknowledges that flow measurement options are available (refer to response to
Comment 2).
Comment 13: WWE believes that the requirement for Best Management Practices (BMP) plan for each discharge is not necessary,
especially for those entities that may conduct 10 or more pipeline tests in a given year. The suggestion is that a
general, institutional BMP plan (i.e., identfy variety of acceptable BMPs for treatment of testing discharges and
guidance for selecting appropriate BMP based on site - specific conditions)be prepared by the permittee.
Response: The permittee may prepare a BMP plan for submittal as part of the application for a certification. As
discussed in the response to Comment 3, the Division will review this plan and how it can be used to support the
development of a certification.
Comment 14: WWE provided a table of detailed edits and revisions to the rationale (8 entries) and permit (21 entries).
Response: Many of the suggestions addressed material in the public notice draft that has been changed. The Division
made an effort to evaluate the intent of the suggestions as they relate to the revised text and made additional changes.
For example, the suggestion to include flushing as a recognized activity that could be authorized under the
hydrotesting general permit was implemented in the revised general permit.
Colorado Stormwater Council (CSC)
Comment 15: The CSC is concerned about the impacts to Colorado Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) that may result
from the discharges that may be authorized under the array of proposed minimal industrial discharge generalpermits
the Division sent to public notice on June 22, 2007. A the Division's July 10 meeting, CSC and other attendees
expressed concerns about the inadequacy of the 30-day comment period to review and respond to these proposed
general permits and requested extensions. The Division extended the comment period to August 27 for all proposed
general permits, except for the hydrostatic testing general permit which was extended to July 27. CWCfelt that all
public comment periods should have been extended to August 27 and does not understand why one was treated
dfferently.
Response: The extension period for the hydrostatic testing general permit was not extended for two reasons.
First, the permit applied to well- defined activity within a relatively narrow industrial sector and discharges would
be predominately in rural areas, Unfortunately, Me draft sent to public notice was insufficiently clear about the
exclusion of hydrotesting of treated water pipelines. With the further clarification of the scope of the permit, the
expected level of general public concern would be substantially diminished. One of the key industries (PSC,)
impacted by this general permit did provide substantial comments on the draft (see Comments 1 through 10).
Second, the Division needs to issue a certain number of permits, including certifications, by 1 October 2007 to
meet the issuance goals set by EPA Region 8. The timely issuance of this general permit will contribute to the
• COLORADO-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 9, Permit No. COG-604040
attainment of that goal. Thus, the Division reached the conclusion that, with the assumption on diminished
concern by the general public, the approach to issue the general permit could proceed as planned.
Comment 16: The proposed permit requires the permittee to obtain approval from each MS4 for a state - authorized discharge. This
process raises several issues to the MS4s:
• Under the Phase 1 and II MS4 permits, discharges authorized under a separate Division permit and in
compliance with the provisions of those permits are allowable but appear to conflict with other MS4 permit
language (Part I.A.2 and Part II.A.2) and possibly with local ordinances.
• Does a MS4 incur a level of liabiliiy for a Division permitted discharge if the MS4 conveyance is utilized to
transport the discharge to state waters? MS4 permits require action to address illicit discharges to
stormwater sewer system.
• Some MS4s prefer only notification of Division permitted discharges but do not want to be required to provide
approval of this discharge. Others prefer approval of such discharges in advance of Division permit issuance.
There has been insufficient time for MS4s to develop internal strategies to address how this process would
work.
• There is a need for a system whereby an MS4 can determine if a Division permitted discharger may or may
not be potential source of a reported illicit discharge, such as a website where permitted dischargers enter
addresses of where they are operating each week, and MS4s have access to that information to either accept
or deny discharge to their storm drain system .
On the basis of the above concerns, CSC requests the following changes to the permit:
• Remove the application requirement that a permittee obtain written approval from the owner of the storm
drain system for discharge,
• Add provision to exempt MS4s of liabiliorfor dischargers permitted under Division permit — including bypass,
spill, or upset conditions.
• Develop, with adequate MS4 input, a website where an MS4 can access information on proposed discharge
locations and expected dates of discharge.
• Provision to notfy the MS4 in the event of a spill or noncompliance situation.
Response: Based on input from MS4s, the permit no longer requires prior written approval from the owner of the
system to be submitted with the application. The owner of the storm drain system has the right to decide on what
inflows are accepted by the system -such as the owner of a domestic waster treatment facility has the right to decide on
flows entering their collection system. For this reason, the Division can not unilaterally authorize a discharge to either
type of permitted system and, thus, will require the permittee to contact the owner of the system to verfy if there are
additional ordinances, regulations. or requirements set by the owner of the .system.
In response to the liability questions raised at the July 10 meeting, the Division provided an initial response in a
July 13 letter sent to the MS4 contacts. Briefly, the response is - "Therefore, unless specifically directed by the
Division, the MS4 permits do not requirepermittees to implement procedures to address pollutant sources resulting
from activities and discharges not required by the program elements in Part I.B of the permits."
The Division is considering improved ways to provide detailed information on certifications issued under
specific general permits, including online inventories.
The Division has a standing spill notification program which includes notification of the collection system
and/or downstream water users when such events occur. This program will be reviewed to identify the need for
specific text on notification ofMS4s.
Comment 17: If the Division has made the decision Mat discharges covered under this general permit may go to the stormwater
system, then these permits should be best Management Practice (BMP) based, with the BMPs chosen to correspond
with the constituents of concern. CSC requests that the general permit be changed from limited -based to a BMP - based.
Response: The Division will maintain the options to use BMP -based and limit -based conditions in general permits,
based on which combination is Judged to be most effective in providing water - quality protection.
Comment 18: Upset and by -pass language in Part 11.6 and 7 is typical of wastewater process discharges and not to types of
discharges expected under this general permit. CSC request that the bypass and upset clauses be removed from the
permit.
Response: Part 11 of the permit is standard boilerplate for use in all permits as required in the regulation and is not
changed to accommodate the many specific conditions that may apply to a particular permit. If a component of Part 11
is not reasonably applicable to the nature of the authorized discharge then there is a basis for non - implementation.
Comment 19: The permit is unclear about coverage of discharges of potable water, which would be covered under a Treated Water
Distribution general permit. Additional information is needed on clarification of the activities and/or volume
thresholds that are intended to require coverage by this general permit.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 10, Permit No. COG - 604000
Response: This clarification is now provided (refer Section 11 in the rationale).
Keep It Clean Partnership (KICP)
Comment 20: KICP was disappointed that the public comment period for this general permit was not extended to August 27, as was
done for the other associated general permits sent to public notice on June 22, 2007. The KICP requests that the permit
clam that coverage does not include flushing, cleaning, maintenance, or operation of drinking water distribution
system and related appurtenances, since such discharges are covered under the general permit for treated water and
associated treated water management plan requirement of that permit.
Response: The reason for not extending the public notice period is provided in the response to Comment 15. The
clarification that the permit does not apply to treated water pipelines is added to the permit (refer 0 response to
Comment 15 and second paragraph under Section Y of the rationale).
Comment 21: The KICP letter included many comments on the array of minimal industrial discharge general permits sent to public
notice on June 22, 2007. These are summarized below.
▪ BMP -based permits are desirable for many of the discharges as opposed to limit -based permits
• Coordination between state and locals is essential
• The Division is to be applauded for reaching out to industry(such as heat transfer equipment cleaning
industry) that performs discharge activities with a consistent, simple statewide compliance message and
identifying appropriate BMPs for each activity, which is essential for compliance and enforcement.
Response: The Division will continue with outreach efforts to stakeholders on permitting processes.
Chatfield Watershed Authority (CWA)
Comment 22: The CWA does not support the position that all discharges are automatically de minimus, in terms of phosphorous
contribution and requests that each certification state the reason, with supporting data, for the de minimus decision.
Response: The Division reconsiders this assumption during the review of application for a certification. The Division
agrees to provide in the certification information that was used to support use of this assumption
Comment 23: While the prior minimal industrial discharge general permit had a phosphorus "report only" requirement, the
proposed general permit does not list phosphorus limits or monitoring requirements. Please clarify.
Response: The Division may require a phosphorous limit and/or monitoring for discharges to watershed subject to
such control regulations. These requirements are addressed in Tables 1 and 2.
Comment 29: CWA raised issues related to wasteload allocation for discharges authorized under the proposed general permit and
how are these considered.
Response: The Division issued certifications under the assumption that the specific discharge would contribute a de
minimus amount of phosphorous and thus would not require consideration as to which category ofwasteload
allocation for total phosphorous would apply(i.e., reserve pool). The Division has not reviewed the available data from
dischargers authorized under general permits to control watershed, assessed the total annual contribution of total
phosphorus, evaluated the need for placing further conditions in general permits to annually limit the phosphorous
load from all such discharges, and discussed with appropriate control authorities any needed set -aside of the reserve
pool for this load.
Comment 25: CWA recommends that the Division convene a small workgroup of Division staff and select membersfrom the four
affected watersheds to clarify the intent and language used in the proposed general permits, with respect to control
regulations. Further, the CWA would like to have more involvement in the general permitting process in order to be
able to provide a consistent message to industrial dischargers to the watershed and plan for associated workload
increase to deal with such permitting issues.
Response: The Division will continue discussions with stakeholders in the affected watersheds to determine if changes
to the permit process or control regulations are warranted
Roxborough Park Metropolitan District (RPMD) (letter by legal counsel- JacksonKelly, Attorneys at Law, PLLC)
COLORADO DEP,4RTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT. Wager Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 11, Permit No. COG - 604000
Comment 26: RPMD believes that there is inadequate water - quality data and scientific information available to evaluate the array of
minimal industrial discharge general permits sent to public notice on June 22, 2007. Therefore, the Division should
either --
provide the relevant data and calculations and extent of each pollutant likely discharged form each facility
operating under each general permit- then extend the comment deadline for 45 days,
or
terminate and void the proposed actions to adopt the general permits.
Response: General permits are created to provide permit coverage to facilities with similar operations and similar
effluent chemistry. These permits are set up so that they can be obtained quickly, as opposed to an individual permit
which may take a substantially longer time frame to obtain. Under these circumstances, limitations are set at the
water quality standards, therefore, the facility is unable to take advantage of any dilution that may be available in
meeting the permit limits.
In determination for coverage under the general permit, the source water and other potential additional parameters
of concern are evaluated and additional requirements may be added to the certification. All applicable water
quality standards may be covered under these certifications. Also, the permittee may be asked for additional
information on the source water or effluent if possible (such as a water quality analysis), to assist in determining if
there are other parameters of concern. Additionally, if there are unique circumstances surrounding a specific
discharge, or if it is determined that a facility cannot meet the limitations set under the general permit, then
coverage under the general would be denied and that facility would then need to apply for an individual permit.
Comment 27: RPMD questions the assumption that discharges are expected to be de minimus contributors of phosphorus and request
information used to reach this conclusion. Further, the suggestion in the permit that the permit writer will determine
the actual quantity of discharged phosphorus and then reach a decision for certification precludes public knowledge of
and input to this decision- making to set effluent limits.
Response: The Division will provide additional information in the certifications on how de minimus decisions were
reached (refer to responses to Comments 23 and 24).
While the permit writer does have some flexibility to use professional judgment in reaching a de minimus decision
about the possible phosphorous load in the discharge, these decisions are reviewed by the Unit Manager before the
certification is issued. As noted above, certifications will now include information on such decisions and the Division
will meet with representatives of the control authorities to discuss further improvement to how control regulations are
implemented in general permits and, subsequently, in certifications. As regulations and policies now exist, the issuance
of a certification, and any amendments, are not subject to public notice or a standing requirement to solicit public
input. The Division welcomes comments on issued certifications and Division- initiated amendments will occur if the
Division concurs with the request.
Nicole Smith
September 11, 2007
May 26, 2011
Board of County Commissioners
of Garfield County, Colorado
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cerise Mine Application
Dear Commissioners John Martin, Tom Jankovsky, and Mike Samson:
In its Application for development of the Cerise Mine, Lafarge West, Inc. ( "Lafarge ") suggests
that a comprehensive approach be employed in the siting and operation of its own mine and the
neighboring Blue Pit. As with the Blue Pit proposal, Lafarge also proposes to phase its mining
operation to reduce impacts. We propose to take the phasing and comprehensive approach one
step further.
We believe strongly, for all of the reasons stated in the Comments and Reports submitted by the
Crystal Springs Coalition, together with the comments of Wooden Deer and Rimledge residents,
that the operation of the Cerise Mine is incompatible with the adjacent, long - established
residential neighborhoods and that the Application should be denied pursuant to the County's
compatibility regulations. If, however, the BOCC is inclined to approve the Cerise Mine, despite
the mountain of evidence demonstrating incompatibility, we suggest that such an approval be
conditioned, not only on adequate mitigation measures, including the monitoring of air quality
and noise, but that the start of operations at the Cerise Mine be delayed until the Blue Pit has
been mined out and the operator has commenced the final stage of reclamation.
By phasing the two projects, the gravel resource and the opportunity to mine it will be preserved,
but the neighborhood will only have to endure the adverse impacts of one operation at a time.
We believe that such phasing is a sensible method of avoiding cumulative impacts that will
otherwise destroy the rural residential character of the adjacent neighborhoods.
By delaying the commencement of the Cerise Mine until the Blue Pit is in the final reclamation
process, and since the County will likely be reviewing a new application for the proposed Blue
Pit expansion, the opportunity also exists for Lafarge, the County, and Western Slope Aggregate
to negotiate the terms by which Lafarge can utilize the access road from Highway 82 currently in
use for the Blue Pit for the operation of the Cerise Mine. Utilizing this access will eliminate
traffic issues at the intersection of Highway 82 and County Road 103, including the necessity for
traffic - related improvements to those roads.
Board of County Commissioners
of Garfield County, Colorado
May 26, 2011
Page 2
The Wooden Deer and Rimledge neighborhoods have already endured years of substantial
adverse impacts for the sake of producing aggregate. We did so expecting that we would be able
to enjoy a peaceful rural existence once the current gravel pits were mined out. We are now
being expected by the operators of those mines to endure another 15 -30 years of mining that will
be significantly more adverse due to proximity and cumulative impacts. If it is so critical to the
County and the region to mine the gravel deposits on the Cerise property, at least phase that
mining operation as we propose in order to reduce those adverse impacts.
Sincerely,
Ernest Kollar, President
Wooden Deer HOA
With endorsement from:
Wooden Deer Board Members:
Chuck Vidal
Sue Coyle
Jon Fitch
George Clemons
Tom Hays, Homeowner and Past Wooden Deer HOA President
From: Chris Haig
To: Molts Orkild- Larsoni
Subject: RE: SUM 6800 - Chevron
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11 :05:23 AM
Molly:
I reviewed the response from Chevron. I thought the responses addressed
the concerns of our letter and have no additional comments.
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross
Engineering, Inc.
Chris Hale, P.E.
826 1/2 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph: 970,945.5544
Fx: 970.945.5558
Original Message
From: Molly Orkild- Larson [mailto: morkild- Iarsonagarfield- county.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:41 PM
To: Chris Hale
Subject: SUM 6800 - Chevron
Chris:
I have attached Julie Justus' response letter to the County's NTC
letter. With the NTC letter I attached your comments regarding the
facility's upgrade of which she has responded. Let me know what you
still need from Chevron in order to fully address your concerns.
Thanks,
Molly
Original Message
From: Molly Orkild- Larson [mailto: morkild- larsonOgarfeld- county.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:31 PM
To: Molly Orkild- Larson
Subject:
This E -mail was sent from "AADML435" (Aficio MP C3500).
Scan Date: 05.25.2011 14:30:31 ( -0400)