HomeMy WebLinkAboutWell Permit 0042757COLORADO
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
Phone (303) 320-8333
Telefax Numbers:
Main Building/Denver
(303) 322.9076
Ptarmigan Place/Denver
(303) 320-1529
First National Bank Building/Denver
(303) 355-6559
Grand Junction Office
(303) 248-7198
Pueblo Office
DEPARTMENT (719) 543-8441
OFAHEALTH
ROY ROMER
Governor
JOEL KOHN
Interim Executive Director
April 23, 1992
R. E. Lawrence, Project Director
P.O. Box 9136
Albuquerque, NM 87119 CERTIFIED MAIL NO: P 784 032 533
RE: Final Permit, Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit System
Number: CO— 0042757 - M -K FERGUSON COMPANY
Gentlemen:
Bproig,-
i I/ ,9
MAY Q 1992 6F
GAHFh LU OUN7-y
Enclosed please find a copy of the permit which was issued under the Colorado
Water Quality Control Act.
Your discharge permit requires that specific actions be performed at
designated times. You are legally obligated to comply with all terms
and conditions of your permit. It is especially important to note the
"EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT", not the date signed, located in the lower right
hand corner of page 1, of your permit. It is illegal to discharge per the
conditions of this permit until that date.
Please read the permit and if you have any questions contact this office at
331-4590.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Shukle, Chief
Permits and Enforcement Section.
Water Quality Control Division
cc: Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Council of Government
Local County Health Department
District Engineer, Field Support Section, WQCD
Stan. May, Field Support Section, WQCD
Ginny Torrez, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD
Anne Ihlenfeldt, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD
Permit Drafters, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD
RJS/lg
Enclosure
pnutd o I rc:,cGd p yv •
6'
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
SUMMARY OF RATIONALE
M -K FERGUSON COMPANY
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION AT RIFLE
ESTES DISPOSAL SITE
PERMIT NUMBER: CO -0042757, GARFIELD COUNTY
I. TYPE OF PERMIT:
II. FACILITY INFORMATION:
A. Facility Type and
Fee Category:
B. SIC Nos.:
C. Legal Contact:
D. Facility Contacts:
CONTENTS
TYPE
FACILITY INFORMATION
RECEIVING STREAM
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
PERFORMANCE HISTORY
TERMS.AND CONDITIONS
REFERENCES
CHANGES FOLLOWING PUBLIC
New
PAGE
1
1
2
5
11
11
28
NOTICE 28
Category 3, Subcategory 8 - Hardrock Mining -
Milling with Discharge from 50,000 gallons per
day or greater - Current fee $3090/year per
CRS 25-8-502
1629 - Reclamation Projects Construction
1094 - Former Uranium Mill (Tailings Disposal)
Mr. R. E. Lawrence, Project Director
P.O. Box 9136
2309 Renard Place, S.E., #300
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87119
(800)+443-4379 or (505)+766-3227
Randy Withee, Project Site Manager
P.O. Box 151
24230 Highways 6 and 24
Rifle, CO 81650
(303)+625-4618
Sharon Arp
U.S. Department of Energy
P.O. Box 5400
5301 Central Avenue, N.E., Suite 1700
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
(505)+845-5668
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 2. Permit No. C0-0042757
E. Facility Location: The Rifle Estes Gulch disposal site is located
in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 14, T5S, R93W,
approximately 5 miles north of Rifle on the
State Highway 13, as shown in figures 1 and 2
of the permit.
F. Discharge Points:
G. Discharge Flows:
III. RECEIVING STREAM:
001 - the effluent pipe from the wastewater
treatment plant at the Rifle Estes Gulch
Disposal Site, and prior to entering Estes
Gulch, as shown in figures 1 and 3 of the
permit.
002 - the emergency spillway structure from
the retention'pond at the Rifle Estes Gulch
Disposal Site, and prior to entering Estes
Gulch, as shown in figures 1 and 3 of the
permit.
001: 0.0864 MGD, or 60 gpm (portable wastewater
treatment plant average design capacity)
1.95 MGD (1354 gpm; projected maximum
daily flow)
002: 0.0283 MGD average flow during the ten
months of projected discharge;
0 - 0.0488 MGD (projected monthly average
flow range)
1.95 MCD (1354 gpm; projected maximum
daily flow)
A. Identification, Classification and Standards
1. Identification: The M -K Ferguson Rifle Estes Disposal Site
outfalls will be discharging to Estes Gulch (segment 4), which
goes to Government Creek, and then to the Colorado River
(segment 1), Lower Colorado River Basin (Region 11). The
distance from the discharges to the Colorado River is
approximately 4 miles.
2. Classifications: Segment 4 is classified for the following
existing uses: Recreation, Class 2; Aquatic Life, Class 2
(Cold); Agriculture. The downstream segment 1 is classified for
the following existing uses: High Quality, Class 2; Recreation,
Class 1; Aquatic Life, Class 1 (Cold); Agriculture; Water Supply.
Numeric Standards: The complete list of standards which have
been assigned in accordance with the above classification can be
found in 3.7.0, Classifications and Numeric Standards for the
Lower Colorado River Basin (5 CCR 1002-8), as amended February
4, 1991. The standards in segment 4 which have been reviewed
with respect to this facility's discharge include those
indicated on the next page.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 3. Permit No. C0-0042757
3. Numeric Standards: (Continued)
Segment 4 (Estes Gulch and Government
Physical and Biological
pH
Inorganic
Boron
Cyanide, free
Metals
Arsenic (acute) - 0.1 mg/1
Cadmium (chronic) - 0.01 mg/1
Chromium, tri (ch)- 0.1 mg/1
Chromium, hex (ch)- 0.1 mg/1
Copper (chronic) - 0.2 mg/1
Segment 1 (Colorado River):
Physical and Biological
pH
Inorganic
Ammonia (NH3), unionized
Boron
Chloride (C1)
Cyanide, free
Nitrate (NO3)
Nitrite (NO2)
Sulfate as SO4
Sulfide as H2S, undis.
Metals
Arsenic (acute) _
Cadmium (chronic) _
Cadmium (acute) _
Chromium, tri (ac) -
Chromium, hex (ch)=
Chromium, hex (ac) -
Copper (chronic) -
Copper (acute)
Iron, total (ch) _
Iron, dis. (ch)
Lead (chronic)
Creek):
- 6.5 - 9.0 s.u.
- 0.75 mg/1
- 0.2 mg/1
Lead (chronic) - 0.1 mg/1
Nickel (chronic) - 0.2 mg/1
Selenium (chron) - 0.02 mg/1
Zinc (chronic) - 2.0 mg/1
- 6.5 - 9.0 s.u.
- 0.02
0.75
- 250.0
0.005
10.0
= 0.05
= 250.0
0.002
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
0.05 mg/1 Lead (acute) = 0.05 mg/1
0.0022 mg/1* Manganese (tot) = 1.0 mg/1
0.0105 mg/1* Manganese (dis) - 0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 Mercury (chr.) = 0.00001 mg/1
0.011 mg/1 Nickel (chronic) = 0.19 mg/1*
0.016 mg/1 Nickel (acute) = 1.8 mg/1*
0.025 mg/1* Selenium (acute) - 0.01 mg/1
0.040 mg/1* Silver (chronic) = 0.00034 mg/1*
1.0 mg/1 Silver (acute) = 0.0091 mg/1*
0.3 mg/1 Zinc (chronic) = 0.063 mg/1*
0.013 mg/1* Zinc (acute) = 0.22 mg/1*
The calculated dissolved standards (indicated by * above) are
based upon hardness dependent equations specified in 3.7.0,
Classifications and Numeric Standards for the Lower Colorado
River Basin (5 CCR 1002-8). A total hardness value of 239 mg/1
as CaCO3 was used, which is the mean of data from WQCD Station
No. 000047, the Colorado River at New Castle. The actual data
and calculations are in the permit file and are available upon
request.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 4. Permit No. C0-0042757
B. Receiving Water Data
1. Stream Low Flow: The flows which will be used to calculate
effluent limitations are acute flows, those that occur for one
day every three years (1E3), or chronic, those that occur for
thirty days every three years (30E3). The low flows for both
Estes Gulch and Government Creek are based upon indications of
intermittent flow in topographic maps, as well as visual
assessments that there has been no water in these streams at
certain times of the year. The flows have been determined by
the Water Quality Control Division and are as follows:
Type Flow
Acute (1E3) 0.0 cfs (0.0 MGD)
Chronic (30E3) 0.0 cfs (0.0 MGD)
The low flows for the Colorado River at Rifle are the same as
what were determined for the M -K Ferguson Company Rifle
Processing Sites permit (Permit No. C0-0042552), which are as
follows:
Type Flow
Acute (1E3)
Chronic (30E3)
• 1200 cfs (776 MGD)
1400 cfs (905 MGD)
2. Impacts on Downstream Water Supplies and Other Downstream
Classified Uses:
According to information in the permit application, no surface
water is used at the Estes Gulch Disposal site, nor along
Government Creek or Thirty-two Mile Gulch in the vicinity of the
site. Closer to the City of Rifle, surface water from
Government Creek is used for irrigation. The potential for
future development of surface water in the region is low and
demand is not expected to change.
Six private wells have been identified within a two-mile radius
of the Estes Gulch Disposal site (see figure 1 of the permit).
All are located in alluvial aquifers adjacent to Rifle Creek,
Government Creek, or their tributaries. There are no
functioning private wells in the Wasatch Formation. No
groundwater is used at the Estes Gulch site nor in its immediate
vicinity.
According to the permittee, the potential for future use of the
groundwater at Estes Gulch is low. The U.S. Department of
Energy has concluded that the upper 300 feet of the Wasatch
Formation cannot sustain pumping rates necessary to supply water
for domestic or agricultural use. Unproven water resources may
exist at greater depths, but it probably would be uneconomical
to develop these supplies.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 5. Permit No. C0-0042757
2. Impacts on Downstream Water Supplies and Other Downstream
Classified Uses: (Continued)
In addition, as indicated in the M -K Ferguson Company Rifle
Processing Sites permit application (Permit No. CO -0042552),
there are no identified domestic users of Colorado River water
for 20 miles downstream of the City of Rifle. Although there
are no known public water supply intakes on the Colorado River
downstream of this discharge, segment 1 is classified for
drinking water use. With compliance of permit limitations, this
facility's discharges should not impact downstream classified
water uses in segments 4 and/or 1.
IV. Facility Description
A. Industry Description
M -K Ferguson Company is the remedial action contractor for the
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) project. This UMTRA
project at the Rifle Estes Gulch Disposal site was mandated by the
Uranium Mill Tailings Raditation Control. Act of 1978 (Public Law
95-604). The UMTRA project is being administered by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Albuquerque operation office. The
cleanup at the former Old and New Rifle processing sites, which
involves disposal at the Estes Gulch site, is being conducted under
the terms of a cooperative agreement between DOE and the State of
Colorado.
This facility involves a remedial action cleanup of tailings and
other contaminated material (soil and debris contaminated with
tailings produced by this cleanup) from the former Old Rifle and New
Rifle processing sites, with disposal to the Rifle Estes Gulch
Disposal site. Maps and facility diagrams of the Rifle Estes Gulch
Disposal site are shown in figures 1, 2, and 3 of the permit.
Two phases of construction are involved in this overall project.
During Phase 1 at the two processing sites, buildings and mill
facilities were demolished and added to the tailings pile, some wind
blown tailings were moved to the tailings pile, the drainage ditches
and retention basin were built, and the access road, fences,
decontamination facilities, and on-site construction facilities were
constructed. During Phase 2, the disposal site and access road will
be prepared and the mill tailings and contaminated material will be
removed from the processing sites and placed into an engineered
embankment at the disposal site. At this time, Phase 1 activities
have been completed and some of the Phase 2 activities have been
done.
The project lifetime for the Rifle processing and disposal sites
remedial activity is estimated to be approximately 3 to 4 years.
Moving of mill tailings material is estimated to begin in the Spring
of 1992 (April or May) by truck transport to the Rifle Estes Gulch
Disposal site.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 6. Permit No. C0-0042757
A. Industry Description (Continued)
The source of wastewater to be collected at the Rifle Estes Gulch
Disposal site for treatment includes only stormwater runoff. No
groundwater is expected to be encountered during the construction
and excavation. As previously indicated, the U.S. Department of
Energy has concluded that the upper 300 feet of the Wasatch
Formation cannot sustain pumping rates necessary to supply water for
domestic or agricultural use; thus, no groundwater is expected to be
encountered during construction. In addition, the underlying
aquifer below the site is over 1000 feet deep; thus, this
groundwater should not be encountered either. Discharges of the
stormwater source from the retention basin have been projected on a
seasonal basis, and were indicated as follows in the permit
application. Other months were indicated as periods of no
discharge. However, the initial amounts and the actual times of
discharges may be different from the original projections. The
following gives an estimated indication of the possible amounts and
frequency of discharge at the disposal site.
Predicted Estes Gulch Disposal Site Outflow from Retention Basin:
First Year - March
April
Second Year - March
April
May
June
July
August
635,000 gallons
(or 0.0205 MGD
332,000 gallons
1,513,000 gallons
(or 0.0488 MCD
1,211,000 gallons
868,000 gallons
652,983 gallons
345,000 gallons
100,000 gallons
of treated discharge
monthly average)
discharge (0.0111 MGD)
to be discharged
monthly average)
discharge (0.0404
discharge (0.0289
discharge (0.0218
discharge (0.0111
discharge (0.0323
Third Year - March 1,513,000 gallons discharge
Fourth Year - March 1,513,000 gallons discharge
MGD)
MGD)
MGD)
MGD)
MGD)
(0.0488 MGD)
(0.0488 MGD)
The total estimated discharge is. 8,682,983 gallons for ten months of
discharge, which equates to an average flow of 0.0233 MGD during the
months of discharge, assuming that discharges would occur
continually each day of the ten months. However, the actual total
time of discharge may be less than this assumption.
This permit is only for the discharge of precipitation and
stormwater surface runoff at the site: If toe drainage waters
should contribute to the retention basin wastewater at the disposal
site, this permit does not include this type of contaminant
wastewater source, and an amendment would be necessary before this
source could be discharged. Refer to the requirements in Part
I.B.11 of the permit which address notification requirements and
prior demonstration of compliance requirements in the case where toe
drainage from the disposal cell (or other potentially contaminated
sources) should contribute to and be part of the wastewater in the
retention pond.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 7. Permit No. CO -0042757
A. Industry Description (Continued)
If contaminated tailings water and/or disposal toe seepage water are
contributed to and are part of the wastewater in the disposal
retention basin, then (as discussed in the previous paragraph) this
permit would need to be amended. However, this type of impact will
probably not occur, since most of the discharges should be from
uncontaminated stormwater runoff (above the 10 -year, 24-hour event)
at the site. Initially, it is anticipated that the permittee will
place any contaminated tailings water collected from the toe
drainage system of the disposal cell back into the retention basin
prior to the time when stormwater is collected and stored in the
retention basin. However, this toe drainage collection wastewater
is expected to drain down to the Wasatch Formation ground water, and
will not be contained or discharged from the retention basin or the
treatment system at the disposal site. If it is found that these
contaminated toe drainage collection wastewaters should remain in
the retention basin and impact the stored waters there, then the
permittee plans to have this water transported for treatment to the
Rifle processing wastewater treatment plant.
During the construction and use of the Estes Gulch Disposal site,
stormwater runoff will be managed to minimize the impact of any
off-site surface drainage. Collection ditches and interceptor
ditches will be constructed to route stormwater runoff either away
from the disposal site or to the retention basin.
The retention basin and drainage ditches are to be lined with a high
density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. The liner is specified to have a
nominal thickness of 40 mils, to have a puncture resistance of 130
lbs. minimum, and to conform to the requirements of the National
Science Foundation Standard 54 for flexible membrane liners.
The wastewater recirculation pond is located next to the truck and
equipment wash decontamination pad. The wastewater recirculation
pond has no discharge; this wastewater is recycled (truck wash water
goes back to the recirculation pond), or else might be used for land
application only on contaminated areas in the site.
Sanitary waste from wash sinks, toilets, shower water, and/or
employee wash water will probably be collected in portable chemical
toilets or a septic tank for off-site disposal. Thus, this
wastewater will not enter the retention pond or the recirculation
pond. See the following section (Wastewater Treatment Description)
for a discussion of the retention pond, recirculation pond, and
wastewater treatment plant.
Selected on-site monitoring wells not located in the areas of
excavation will be left in place throughout and following the
remedial action program for assessment in attaining the specified
groundwater standards which are required in the Remedial Action Plan
(RAP). Monitoring well locations are shown in the RAP.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 8. Permit No. C0-0042757
A. Industry Description (Continued)
According to information submitted with the permit application,
diesel fuel for equipment will be stored in an above -ground storage
tank with a capacity that will be later determined by the
sub -contractor. Also, there may be some storage of chemicals used
for treatment at the wastewater treatment plant, including: ferrous
sulfate, calcium hydroxide (lime), sulfuric acid, barium chloride,
and possibly sodium hypochlorite and polymer(s), if needed.
B. Wastewater Treatment Description
At the Rifle Estes Gulch Disposal site, the contributing sources of
wastewater will go to the wastewater retention basin, and then to a
portable wastewater treatment plant if necessary. The retention
basin, which has a total capacity of 6,419,000 gallons (excluding
freeboard), has been designed for containment of stormwater runoff
from the 10 -year, 24-hour storm event, plus the sediment that will
accumulate over the construction period. The retention basin will
be lined with 40 mil thick high density polyethylene liner. Under
times of no -discharge for the retention basin (which is anticipated
for many months of the operation; see the previous discussion on
page 6 of this rationale for the estimated periods of discharge),
evaporation in the retention basin and land application on
contaminated areas will occur. When discharges occur from the
retention basin at the disposal site, sedimentation and chemical
precipitation with flocculants would probably first be utilized for
in -pond treatment.
At the Estes Gulch disposal site, water from the recirculation pond
and/or the retention basin may be used as a supplementary source for
dust control within the boundaries of the processing site only in
contaminated areas. Application will be by a sprinkler system or by
water truck with a spray bar. The water will be sprayed under
controlled conditions to prevent drift and to ensure that any runoff
will return to the basin(s).
Effluent quality of the retention basin will be evaluated for the
need to utilize additional treatment with a wastewater treatment
plant.. At the Rifle disposal site, either an existing portable
wastewater treatment facility may be used, or alternative treatment
plans might be utilized. The portable WWTP that was used at Durango
would probably be utilized; the capacity of this WWTP is 60 gpm or
0.0864 MGD. One possible alternative treatment plan is that any
wastewater with higher concentrations of concern from the retention
basin might be hauled to the Rifle processing site WWTP for
treatment.
Figure 3 of the permit shows the disposal site and the location of
the retention basin and the WWTP pad. Figure 4 of the permit shows
the mobile wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) process diagram.
Further details of the treatment processes can be found in the
permit file.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 9. Permit No. CO -0042757
B. Wastewater Treatment Description (Continued)
The first trailer of the mobile wastewater treatment plant contains
equipment for precipitation of metals by adjusting the pH with lime
and sulfuric acid. The second trailer contains membrane filters
(ultrafiltration) for removal of precipitated solids. A four bed
ion exchange unit, which is installed in the third trailer, may be
used to remove other substances that are not amenable to
precipitation. The flow of wastewater is from trailer 1 to 2, then
(if needed) to trailer 3, and then out through discharge point 001.
The estimated effluent concentrations and design specifications for
the portable water treatment plant which was used in Durango is
indicated in Table 1 of Amendment No. 4 rationale of the Durango M -K
Ferguson Company permit (permit number C0-0041548).
Experience at other UMTRA sites has demonstrated that the
concentrations of heavy metals and radionuclides can be reduced to
acceptable levels by using a chemical precipitation and filtration
wastewater treatment plant. The initial step in the treatment of
the wastewater involves acidifying the incoming stream to a pH of 4
to 5 s.u. This acidification serves two purposes. First, it
decomposes the soluble hexavalent uranyl carbonate complex present
in the water into carbon dioxide and insoluble oxides of uranium.
Secondly, it provides the proper chemical environment for the
precipitation of arsenic. Following the acidification, ferrous
sulfate solution is metered into the stream. The ferrous sulfate
acts as a coagulant to assist in the precipitation of arsenic and
selenium by co -precipitation with the ferrous oxhvdroxide. Barium
chloride is also added into the first reaction tank to treat
radium. Lime is added into the first or second reaction tank to
increase the pH for enhancing precipitation of metals and
radioactive parameters. The precipitates are removed from the
system as a thin slurry in a membrane ultrafiltration system.
Eventually, this slurry is taken to the disposal cell. The pH of
the residual solution from the ultrafiltration system is lowered to
the allowable range and then discharged.
Since 1984 treatment plants have been operated at UMTRA Project
sites at Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, Lakeview, Oregon, Salt Lake City,
Utah, and Durango, Colorado. According to the permittee, these
previously used treatment plants have successfully utilized two
major process steps for treatment at other sites to meet effluent
limits to a level consistent with all State and EPA NPDES discharge
requirements:
Chemical Pre-treatment - The chemical pretreatment was designed
for precipitation of selenium, arsenic, radium, uranium, silver,
copper, iron, lead, and nickel.
Ultrafiltration - Removal of the precipitated solids was
accomplished by membrane filtration. This was followed by
permeate neutralization to meet the required effluent pH.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 10. Permit No. C0-0042757
B. Wastewater Treatment Description (Continued)
In addition to the constituents listed on the previous page,
chemical treatment is designed to remove zinc and manganese.
However, in addition to treatment for metals and radionuclides,
treatment for ammonia and total dissolved solids (TDS) may be
necessary if higher contaminated sources are introduced into the
retention basin which would impact the wastewater discharge. Thus
M -K Ferguson Company may need to consider implementing treatment
alternatives for reduction of total ammonia and TDS levels to meet
the numeric permit limits for the disposal site. If there is only a
discharge of precipitation and uncontaminated stormwater runoff,
then treatment for ammonia and TDS will probably not be necessary.
However, acute toxicity due to TDS and/or other parameters should
still be considered with respect to additional treatment if WET
toxicity should occur in the discharges.
At the time of permit application, neither a general class of
polymers nor a specific polymer had been selected for use in the
wastewater treatment plant. The permittee should submit
information, including Materials Safety Data Sheets, for the
polymers once a final choice is made. Polymers should be chosen
which are not toxic to humans or aquatic life at the levels used.
The Division reserves the right to include additional requirements
because of the polymer used.
Sludge and spent resin from treatment operations will be disposed
with the tailings in the licensed encapsulation area (landfill
disposal area at the Estes Gulch site). The solids that form the
sludge come from the WWTP and from the retention basin from both the
Rifle processing and disposal sites. The sludge is comprised of
silt and solids from the retention basin, metal hydroxide
precipitates, and barium sulfate -radium sulfate coprecipitate.
The wastewater treatment system will contain numerous monitoring and
control points. The proposed methods of effluent flow measurement,
as indicated in the permit application, include a turbine meter from
the wastewater treatment plant (zero to 75 gpm measurement capacity
for outfall 001), and either a broad -crested weir (for lower flows
of zero to 79 cfs capacity) or pump capacity (for higher flows of
200 - 800 gpm) from the retention basin (for outfall 002).
The wastewater treatment plant will be operated under the
supervision of a certified Class B Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Plant operator. According to the permittee in the permit
application, the names and the certification numbers of operators
will be submitted to the Water Quality Control Division after they
are selected by the subcontracter.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 11. Permit No. C0-0042757
V. PERFORMANCE HISTORY
A. Monitoring Data
1. Discharge Monitoring Reports and Previous Monitoring Data: This
is a new facility, thus no treated effluent monitoring data is
available. However, the permittee has submitted some
information regarding groundwater at the disposal site, as well
as groundwater quality data from the processing site. This
includes a discussion relating to the groundwater at the
disposal site (see under "Industry Description", page 6 of this
rationale). Also, the permittee has submitted the average water
quality of shallow groundwater at both Rifle processing sites
with the individual groundwater well monitoring data in the
processing site vicinity that was sampled during October 1987.
This information is summarized in the permit application in the
Rifle processing sites permit file. The untreated groundwater
monitoring data in the permit application indicated levels above
this permit's limitations for Total Ammonia in the wells at the
New Rifle Processing Site, and levels above this permit's
limitations for Total Arsenic and Total Zinc in a few wells at
both processing sites. Thus, if contaminated waters from the
tailings at the disposal site should impact the retention basin
and the discharges from the disposal site, treatment may be
necessary for the disposal site to meet permit limits.
2. State Sampling: There are no state sampling results available
for this facility.
VI. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT
A. Effluent Limitations
In developing suitable effluent limitations, the Division must
review all applicable standards and regulations and apply that which
is more stringent. This review includes, but is not limited to, the
water quality standard based effluent limitations, federal
guidelines and standards (40 CFR Subchapter N), State Effluent
Regulations (10.1.0) and Best Professional Judgement limitations.
Such a review has been done for this facility. The following limits
in Table VI -1 will apply and are discussed in the following section.
Table VI -1 -- Effluent Limits for Discharge Points 001 and 002
Parameter
Limit Rationale
Flow, MGD 0.0864 (001) a/ Average WWTP Design Capacity
Report (002) J Flow Assessment
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 20/30 J Best Professional Judgement
A/ - 30 -Day Average J - 30 -Day Average/Daily Maximum
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 12. Permit No. C0-0042757
Table VI -1 -- Effluent Limits for Discharge Points 001 and 002 (Continued)
Parameter Limit
Rationale
COD, mg/1 500
B0D5, mg/1 Report
Oil and Grease, mg/1 10
pH, s.u. 6.5 - 9.0
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1 0.5
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 515
Total Ammonia, mg/1 as N 320
Total Arsenic, mg/1 0.1/1.0
Total Zinc, mg/1 0.5/1.0
Dissolved Radium 226, pCi/1 3.0/10.0
Total Radium 226 + 228, pCi/1 5.0/30
Total Natural Uranium, mg/1 2.0/4.0
WET - Acute Toxicity IWC -100% / 50%
Best Professional Judgement
State Effluent Regulations
State Effluent Regulations
Water Quality Standards
State Effluent Regulations
State Salinity Regulations
Water Quality Standards
Water Qual. Stds/ BPJ
Best Professional Judgement
Best Professional Judgement
Best Professional Judgement
Water Qual. Stds/ BPJ
State Discharge Regulations
A/ - 30 -Day Average
J - 30 -Day Average/Daily Maximum
2/ - Daily Maximum
BPJ — Best Professional Judgement
J - Minimum - Maximum
A/ - 30 -Day Average/7-Day Average
J - See footnote a/ in the permit
1. Water Quality Standard Based Effluent Limitations: A mass
balance equation was used to determine the effluent
concentrations for those parameters which must be evaluated for
this permit and which have assigned water quality standards as
specified in segment 4 (Estes Gulch; Government Creek) and
segment 1 (Colorado River) of the Colorado River (except in the
case of pH, where the limits are set directly from stream
standards). The mass balance equation is:
Where:
Qi
Q2
M2 = M3Q3 - M1Q1,
Q2
= Upstream low flows from Part III.B.1
= Effluent flow from Part II.G for the total average flows
from discharge points 001 and 002 at the disposal site
to evaluate segment 4 WQS-based calculations for Estes
Gulch
or Q2 — Effluent flow for the total average flows from the WWTP
discharges for outfalls 001 or 003 from the Rifle
processing sites, and outfall 001 from the Rifle
disposal site to evaluate segment 1 WQS-based
calculations for the Colorado River
Q3 — Combined downstream flow (Q1 + Q2)
M1 — Upstream background pollutant concentration
M2 Unknown; effluent pollutant concentration
M3 — Water Quality Standard
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 13. Permit No. C0-0042757
1. Water Quality Standard Based Effluent Limitations: (Continued)
A summary of the mass balance calculations are shown in Table
VI -2 and discussed on the following pages.
The values for Q1, Q2 and Q3 are the same in all of the
calculations for water quality limited parameters and are:
a) For mass balance equation evaluations involving segment 4
(Estes Gulch and/or Government Creek):
Chronic
Q1
Q2
Q3
Flow Values
0.0 cfs (or 0.0 MGD)
0.18 cfs (0.115 MGD)
0.18 cfs (0.115 MGD)
Acute Flow Values
Ql : 0.0 cfs (or 0.0 MGD)
Q2 : 0.18 cfs (0.115 MGD)
Q2 : 0.18 cfs (0.115 MGD)
b) For mass balance equation evaluations involving segment 1
(the Colorado River):
Chronic Flow Values
Qi: 1400 cfs (or 905 MGD)
Q2: 0.69 cfs (0.45 MGD)
Q3: 1400.69 cfs (905.45 MGD)
Acute Flow Values
Q1 : 1200 cfs (or 776 MGD)
Q2 : 0.69 cfs (0.45 MGD)
Q3 : 1201.69 cfs (776.45 MGD)
For assessments involving Estes Gulch and Government Creek
(segment 4), the total facility flow (Q2) of 0.18 cfs, or 0.115
MGD, is based upon the average projected flows which would occur
from the disposal discharge points 001 and 002. The same chronic
discharge flow value is used for the acute discharge flow in the
mass balance equations, since the maximum flows are expected to
only occur under very unusual circumstances where the 10 -year,
24-hour precipitation event is exceeded. However, regardless of
what the total disposal facility discharge flow value is, the same
WQS based limitations would apply, since the low flow value for
Estes Gulch and Government Creek is 0.0 cfs.
For the WQS assessments involving the Colorado River (segment 1),
the total facility flow (Q2) of 0.691 cfs, or 0.4464 MGD, is based
upon the average projected flows which would occur simultaneously
from the WWTP discharge points 001 or 003 at the Rifle processing
site and the WWTP discharge point 001 at the Rifle disposal site.
Based upon permittee comments and the assumptions made for the WQS
mass balance assessment no simultaneous discharge is allowed from
both Rifle processing site WWTP discharges and no simultaneous
discharge is allowed from both Rifle disposal site discharges.
The discharge flows for the processing site outfalls 002 and 004
are not included in the WQS assessment, since these two retention
basin discharges (002 and 004) would not occur under the stream
low flow conditions that are the basis for the mass balance
calculations or under normal stream flow conditions. Discharges
from the processing site outfalls 002 and 004 are not expected,
except under conditions where the 10 -year, 24-hour precipitation
event is exceeded. Similarly, the flow for the disposal site
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 14. Permit No. CO -0042757
1. Water Quality Standard Based Effluent Limitations: (Continued)
outfall 002 is not included in the WQS assessment, since a
simulataneous discharge from both disposal outfalls is not
allowed to occur.
Values for M1 and M3 vary depending on the applicable water
quality standard (M3) and the background stream quality data
(MI). The water quality standards for the parameters limited in
this permit are shown in Table VI -2 along with the calculated
effluent limitations (M2). The mean upstream background
concentration for the Colorado River, which is also summarized
in Table VI -2, is from the WQCD Station No. 000047 - Colorado
River at New Castle, CO. The ambient upstream data for the
Colorado River covers the period from January 4, 1968 through
January 3, 1990. The actual data and calculations are in the
permit file and are available upon request
Table VI -2 Summary of Mass Balance Calculations
Parameter
Upstream Background Stream Effluent
Concentration Standard Limitation
Chronic
(M1) (M3) (M2)
a) WOS Assessment for Segment 4 Estes Gulch and Government. Creek:
Total Boron, mg/1 0
Total Cyanide, mg/1 0
Total Recoverable Arsenic, mg/1 0
Total Recoverable Cadmium, mg/1 0
Hexavalent Chromium, mg/1 0
Trivalent Chromium, mg/1 0
Total Recoverable Copper, mg/1 0
Total Recoverable Lead, mg/1 0
Total Recoverable Nickel, mg/1 0
Total Recoverable Selenium, mg/1 0
Total Recoverable Zinc, mg/1 0
Total Radium 226 + 228, pCi/1 0
Total Recoverable Vanadium, mg/1 0
0.75 0.75
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.02 0.02
2.0 2.0
5.0 f/ 5.0
0.1 J 0.1
J - assumed
f/ - 5.0 pCi/1 is the statewide Basic Standard for Total Radium 226 + 228
(reference 1).
h/ = 0.1 mg/1 represents a Best Engineering Judgement -derived standard for
vanadium, which is the recommended criteria for agricultural usage for
livestock watering (reference 4).
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 15. Permit No. C0-0042757
1. Water Quality Standard Based Effluent
Table VI -2 -- Summary of Mass Balance Calculations
Limitations:
(Continued)
Parameter
Upstream Background
Concentration
(M1)
Stream
Standard
Chronic
(M3)
Effluent
Limitation
(M2)
b) WOS Assessment for Segment 1 - Colorado River:
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1
Total Ammonia, mg/1 as N
Total Boron, mg/1
Total Chloride, mg/1
Free Cyanide, mg/1
Total Fluoride, mg/1
Total Nitrate, mg/1 as N
Total Nitrite, mg/1 as N
Total Sulfate, mg/1
Total Sulfide, mg/1 as H2S
Potentially Dissolved Aluminum, mg/1
Total Recoverable Arsenic, mg/1
Potentially Dissolved Cadmium, mg/1
Hexavalent Chromium, mg/1
Trivalent Chromium, mg/1
Potentially Dissolved Copper,
Dissolved Iron, mg/1
Total Recoverable Iron, mg/1
Potentially Dissolved Lead, mg/1
Dissolved Manganese, mg/1
Total Recoverable Manganese, mg/1
Total Recoverable Mercury, mg/1
Potentially Dissolved Nickel, mg/1
Total Recoverable Selenium, mg/1
Total Recoverable Silver, mg/1
Total Recoverable Thallium, mg/1
Total Recoverable Zinc, mg/1
mg/1
o J
0 J
0.039
126
0.0029
0.30
0.32
0.0055
111
0 J
0.000913 e/
0.0015 J
0.00025 a/
0 e/
0 e/
0.0056 J
0.10
0.426
0.0059
0
0.0547
0
0.044
0.0022
0
0
0.024
LLuZLL� �L
0.003
0.16
0.75
250
0.005
2.0
10.0
0.05
250
0.002
0.087/0.75
0.05
0.00225/0.0105
0.011/0.016
0.05
0.025/0.040
0.30
1.0
0.013/0.050
0.05
1.0
0.00001
0.185/1.8
0.010
0.00034/0.009
0.000012
0.063/0.22
A/ 5.2
320
1400
434,000
A/ 3.7
3000
17,000
90
507,000
4.1
170/1300 4/
300
4.0/17.8 4/
22/28 J
87
40/61 d/
405
1200
15/77 d/
100
1900
0.020
4/ 290/3000 4/
a/ 14
1 0.68/12.5 4/
0.024
4/ 79/340 4/
A/
a/
J
J
a/
d/
a/ _
J a
g/
JID
Total Recoverable Arsenic, Total Residual Chlorine, Free Cyanide,
Trivalent Chromium, and Tot. Rec. Selenium are acute standards. All
other standards are chronic, unless indicated by A/ for metals.
assumed
2.0 mg/1 represents a Best Engineering Judgement -derived standard for
fluoride, which is the recommended criteria for agricultural usage for
livestock watering (reference 4).
the chronic/acute numeric standards and the 30 -day average/daily maximum
concentration discharge levels.
the ambient background concentration was analyzed as total recoverable for
most of the indicated parameters; or as total for arsenic, mercury, and
selenium.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 16. Permit No. C0-0042757
Table VI -2 -- Summary of Mass Balance Calculations (Continued)
b) WOS Assessment for Segment 1 - Colorado River: (Cont.)
Total Radium 226 + 228, pCi/1 0 J 5.0 J 8700
Total Natural Uranium, mg/1 0.0036 J 0.06 g/ 98
Total Recoverable Vanadium, mg/1 0 J 0.1 J 200
J - assumed
J — 5.0 pCi/1 is the statewide Basic Standard for Total Radium 226 + 228
(reference 1).
g/ — 0.06 mg/1 is equal to 40 pCi/1; 40 pCi/1 is the basic standard specified
for Total Natural Uranium in 3.7.5(3) of the Classifications and Numeric
Standards for the Lower Colorado River Basin 3.7.0 (5 CCR 1002-8).
J - 0.1 mg/1 represents a Best Engineering Judgement -derived standard for
vanadium, which is the recommended criteria for agricultural usage for
livestock watering (reference 4).
— mean upstream concentration for Dissolved Natural Uranium
2. Applicable Federal Effluent Guidelines and Standards: Federal
technology-based effluent limitations (BAT and BPT).for the
Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory of the Ore Mining
and Dressing Point Source Category (40 CFR 440 Subpart C) are
being used as a basis for some effluent limitations for the
Rifle Estes Gulch Disposal Site Remedial Action Project. It is
felt that wastewater from this site must be of at least the
minimal quality provided by the federal standards, and that
these limitationsrepresent a best available technology
treatment level. The Division believes that this level of
treatment can be economically obtained for all the parameters
indicated, with the exception of total ammonia. These limits
will be included based on Best Professional Judgement. The
limitations are in Table VI -3 below.
Table VI -3 -- Federal Standards
Parameter
30 Day Average Daily Maximum
Concentration Concentration
pH, s.u. 6.0 - 9.0 a/
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 20 30
COD, mg/1 500
Total Ammonia, mg/1 100
Total Arsenic, mg/1 0.5 1.0
Total Zinc, mg/1 0.5 1.0
J — range
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 17. Permit No. C0-0042757
2. Applicable Federal Effluent Guidelines and Standards: (Cont.)
Table VI -3 -- Federal Standards (Cont.)
Parameter
30 Day Average Daily Maximum
Concentration Concentration
Dissolved Radium 226, pCi/1 3 10
Total Radium 226, pCi/1 10 30
Total Uranium, mg/1 J 2 4
b/ = Federal effluent limitations for total uranium are specified for mine
drainage from mines from which uranium, radium, and vanadium ores are
produced; the other parameter effluent limitations specified above are for
pollutants discharged from mills involved in the extraction of uranium,
radium, and vanadium ores, including mill -mine facilities.
3. Regulations for Effluent Limitations: The Regulations for
Effluent Limitations (10.1.0), apply to the conventional
pollutants. For this facility, the limitations for Total
Residual Chlorine (TRC) and Oil and Grease are based on this
regulation.
Since there could be higher oxygen -demanding organic wastewaters
that are associated with uranium mill products/wastes, both COD
and BOD5 must be assessed for this permit. As previously
discussed, there is a limit for COD in the permit. A BOD5 limit
of 30/45 mg/1 exists for waters of the State, as based upon the
Regulations for Effluent Limitations. However, instead of
including a permit limitation for BOD5 at this time, monitoring
for BOD5 is specified for this permit. If levels above 30/45
mg/1 are found to occur in discharges from this facility, then
the BOD5 limitations would later be incorporated into the permit.
4. Discussion of Limitations:
a) 10 -Year, 24 -Hour Event Exemption Claim Requirements and
Water Quality Standard -Based Limitations: This exemption may
be applicable for discharge point 002. If the 10 -year,
24-hour precipitation event exemption for the BAT/BPT-based
permit limitations is to be claimed for these discharges,
appropriate documentation of the event as well as
containment verification and a discussion of operational and
management practices must be submitted as indicated in Part
I.8.13 of the permit. This discussion must also document
that the facility is designed, constructed and is being
maintained to contain or treat the maximum volume of
wastewater as indicated in Part I.B.13.a) and b) of the
permit.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 18. Permit No. C0-0042757
4. Discussion of Limitations: (Continued)
a) 10 -Year. 24 -Hour Event Exemption Claim Requirements and
Water Quality Standard -Based Limitations:
In addition, for this storm event exemption to be claimed, M -K
Ferguson Company must demonstrate that the following water
quality standard -based levels are attained:
pH 6.5 - 9.0 s.u.
Total Ammonia, as N 320 mg/1
Total Arsenic 0.1 mg/1
Total Recoverable Zinc 2.0 mg/1
Total Radium 226 + 228 5.0 pCi/1
Total Natural Uranium 98 mg/1
For claiming a storm water exemption, M -K Ferguson must also
adequately demonstrate that all available management,
containment, and treatment options, including the wastewater
treatment plant, have been optimally used.
As indicated in Section 3.5.5(3)(b) of the "Classifications
and Numeric Standards for the Lower Colorado River Basin (5
CCR 1002-8)", the Uranium level in surface waters shall be
maintained at the lowest practicable level; and Section
3.5.5(3)(c) states that in no case shall Dissolved Uranium
levels in waters assigned a water supply classification be
increased by any cause attributable to municipal,
industrial, cr agricultural discharges so as to exceed 40
pCi/1. In addition, Section 3.1.11(2) of the "Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Waters" states that
the Radium 226 and 228 level in surface waters shall be
maintained at the lowest practical level. Thus, optimal
treatment is to be maintained as much as possible to not
only meet the limitations of this permit, but also so not to
impact the groundwater concentration limits specified as
part of the Remedial Action Plan.
b) Stormwater: Although some Best Management Practice
requirements of this permit (see Part I.0 of the permit) in
part address some stormwater situations for this site, this
permit (C0-0042757) does not address all the necessary
stormwater requirements for the disposal site at this time.
A stormwater permit application will be submitted by the
permittee for the Rifle processing sites and disposal site
before October 1, 1992.
c) Total Ammonia: Based upon information in the Final Remedial
Action Plan for the Rifle UMTRA Site (dated August 1991),
the ground water monitoring data at the Rifle Disposal Site
and the two Rifle Processing Sites indicate the existing
ammonium concentrations on the next page.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 19. Permit No. C0-0042757
4. Discussion of Limitations: (Continued)
c) Total Ammonia: (Cont.)
Rifle Average ammonium conc. — 3.0 mg/1
Estes Gulch Minimum ammonium conc. — K0.05 mg/1
Disposal Site: Maximum ammonium conc. — 8.1 mg/1
Old Rifle Average ammonium conc. — Not Determined
Processing Minimum ammonium conc. — K0.05 mg/1
Site: Maximum ammonium conc. — 1.3 mg/1
New Rifle
Processing
Site:
Average ammonium conc. — 249 mg/1
Minimum ammonium conc. — K0.05 mg/1
Maximum ammonium conc. — 3650 mg/1
The above data for the disposal site is for groundwater
monitoring well samples from 1987 through 3-10-1990. This
data indicates that there are low ammonium concentrations in
the Wasatch Formation groundwater occurring below the
disposal site; however, as previously mentioned, the upper
300 feet of the Wasatch Formation cannot sustain pumping
rates necessary to supply water for domestic or agricultural
use.
Generally, the ammonium concentration in groundwater at the
Old Rifle processing site, where 79% of the groundwater
samples were below detectable levels (K0.05 or K0.1 mg/1),
does not have the potential water quality impact for this
parameter as at the New Rifle processing site. Thus,
ammonia treatment will be necessary for the New Rifle
processing site. Ammonia treatment may also be necessary at
the disposal site if contaminated tailings water should
impact waters in the disposal retention basin. However,
this type of impact will probably not occur, since the
discharges should be from uncontaminated stormwater runoff
(above the 10 -year, 24-hour event) at the site.
The total ammonia nitrogen limitation (320 mg/1 as N, based
upon the water quality standard -based mass balance equation
calculation) is in effect for this permit. Thus, M -K
Ferguson Company may need to consider implementing treatment
alternatives for reduction of total ammonia levels in the
discharge(s) at the disposal site to attain the 320 mg/1
total ammonia limit if discharge concentrations should
exceed this level; however, with only uncontaminated
stormwater discharges, ammonia treatment would probably not
be needed at the disposal site.
In determining the chronic limitation for total ammonia for
this permit, the Division utilized the Colorado Ammonia
Model method (or also called the Lewis method). This method
was also used for determining the acute total ammonia value,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 20. Permit No. C0-0042757
4. Discussion of Limitations: (Continued)
c) Total Ammonia: (Cont.)
which is 2300 mg/1 as N. Since the acute value is so much
greater than the chronic limit, and levels below the chronic
ammonia limitation must be attained in the treated facility
discharges, the acute value is not limited in this permit.
Toxicity considerations involved in the WET biomonitoring
testing requirements for this permit will necessitate that
M -K Ferguson must comply with the total ammonia limit of 320
mg/1 as N. If the 50 % WET acute toxicity level in the
facility discharge(s) is found to be due to ammonia
concentrations which are within the permit limit of 320
mg/1, then the discharge sample would need to be chemically
modified in order to remove the ammonia, and then the
permittee would need to demonstrate that no acute toxicity
at the 50 % toxicity level is occurring in the discharge due
to any other parameters.
d) Total Natural Uranium: The Division has based the Total
Natural Uranium limitations (2.0/4.0 mg/1) for this facility
upon a Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) determination,
since the treatment technology for meeting these limits is
economically feasible and available. These BPJ levels are
necessary (and possibly even lower levels may be necessary)
in order to attain the groundwater concentration Uranium
limit of 0.044 mg/1 specified as part of the facility's
Remedial Action Plan. Since some concentrations of uranium
have been detected above the 0.044 mg/1 level in
contaminated groundwater below both Rifle processing sites,
limitations for Total Natural Uranium are also applicable
for the Rifle disposal permit. Also, refer to the items
related to uranium that are discussed in Tables VI -2 and
VI -3 of the rationale.
e) Salinity (Total Dissolved Solids): The Regulation for
Implementation of the Colorado Salinity Standards Through
the Colorado Discharge Permit Program, (3.10.0) addresses
the discharge of total dissolved solids (TDS) to the
Colorado River Basin. The objective of this regulation is
to provide more detailed guidance in the application of
salinity standards developed pursuant to Section 204 of the
Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The stated objective of
"the Colorado River Salinity Standards is to have, whenever
practicable, a no -salt return policy for industrial
discharges." For new industrial discharge permits, a report
is required as part of the above regulation (3.1.0).
Because the regulation provides a waiver from the no -salt
discharge requirement when the salt loading reaching the
Colorado River is less than one ton per day or 350 tons per
year, whichever is less, the Division has chosen to
establish this as a permit limit.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 21. Permit No. C0-0042757
e) Salinity (Total Dissolved Solids): (Continued)
The permit limit to meet the stated requirement has been
established as follows: 350 tons per year is equal to
700,000 pounds per year, which is equal to 1918 pounds per
day, which equates to 515 mg/1 as a daily maximum
limitation, based upon the total discharge flows of 0.4464
MGD from outfalls 001 or 003 at the Rifle processing sites
and outfall 001 at the Rifle disposal site.
The discharge quality of stormwater from the Rifle disposal
site is not known. However, more recent discharge data from
the Durango disposal site has indicated TDS levels above 1
ton per day (with concentrations of 2240 mg/1 and 2850 mg/1,
and loadings of 2.5 and 3.6 tons per day). Although this
may be due to the presence of groundwater in the pond at the
Durango disposal site, some of the previous discharges that
did not contain groundwater at Durango had TDS loadings in
excess of 1 ton per day (1.1 to 3.1 tons per day).
Groundwater in the Wasatch Formation below the Rifle
disposal site is considered poor quality, with TDS
concentrations in the range of 1,460 to 25,100 mg/1;
however, the groundwater below the disposal site is not
expected to be pumped or discharged.
It is also a requirement of this regulation that all
discharges into the Colorado River basin be monitored for
TDS on a continual basis. Due to the potential for TDS
loadings above 1 ton per day occurring in discharges at this
site, the Division has determined that the permittee will
need to monitor for TDS on a monthly basis. Also see
footnotes g/ and h/ on page.3 of the permit.
If the discharges are found to be greater than 1 ton per day
and/or 350 tons per year of TDS loading, M -K Ferguson
Company may want to submit a report in accordance with the
Salinity Regulations, addressing the economic feasibility of
salt -removal with respect to obtaining a waiver from the TDS
permit limit. Requirements for this report are included in
the Rifle Processing Sites permit (see page lk, Part 1.8.15
of that permit).
The remaining concern regarding the levels of ITS in these
discharges is that the TDS concentrations may be at or above
acutely toxic levels, which would affect the WET testing for
the discharges. In some cases, a sodium chloride
concentration of 2400 mg/1 has caused 50% acute toxicity to
Ceriodaphnia dubia and a magnesium chloride concentration
of 1592 mg/1 has caused 50% acute toxicity to Daphnia
magna. Thus, the TDS concentration will be critical in
affecting WET testing results, and treatment of TDS down to
lower levels will probably be necessary to comply with the
50 % acute toxicity level.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 22. Permit No. C0-0042757
4. Discussion of Limitations: (Continued)
f) Prior Demonstration of Compliance: As indicated in Part
I.B.11 of the permit, in the case where toe drainage from
the disposal cell, or other potentially contaminated
drainage sources, should enter the retention pond, the
permittee shall immediately notify the Water Quality Control
Division. Prior to the initial discharge of this
contributing wastewater source to Estes Gulch from discharge
points 001 and 002 being allowed, the permittee shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Permits and
Enforcement Section of the Division that the treated
effluent is in compliance with all the effluent limitations
in Part I.A.1 of the permit, including a demonstration that
the 50% acute toxicity level in WET testing has been
achieved.
A prior demonstration of compliance is not necessary for
discharges involving only precipitation and stormwater
runoff sources.
5. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing:
For this facility, acute WET testing is required. (See Parts
I.A and I.B of the permit.)
Purpose of WET Testing: Section 6.9.7 of the "Regulations for
the State Discharge Permit System", passed by the Water Quality
Control Commission (WQCC), has established the use of WET
testing as a method for identifying and controlling toxic
discharges from wastewater treatment facilities. WET testing is
being utilized as a means to ensure that there are no discharges
"in amounts, concentrations or combinations which are harmful to
the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals, plants, or
aquatic life" as required by Section 3.1.11 (1)(d) of the "Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Waters".
Chemical analysis of effluent has provided only a partial
evaluation of the potential impact a discharge could have on the
receiving stream. Also, chemical analysis cannot evaluate the
synergistic or antagonistic effect of compounds. There are also
compounds for which an accurate or reproducable method of
chemical analysis has not yet been developed, as well as
compounds which are just beginning to be evaluated for toxic
effects. WET testing will provide a more comprehensive means of
evaluating the toxicity of a discharge than could otherwise
currently be accomplished.
Instream Waste Concentration (IWC): As a condition of the
permit, the permittee will be required to conduct routine
monitoring for acute toxicity. An unacceptable level of acute
toxicity occurs when 1) there is a statistically significant
difference in the mortality (at the 95% confidence level)
observed, for Ceriodaphnia sp. (water flea) and fathead minnows,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 23. Permit No. CO -0042757
Instream Waste Concentration (IWC): (Continued) between the
control and any effluent concentration less than or equal to the
Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) or 2) a species mortality in
any dilution of effluent (including 100% effluent) exceeds 50%.
The IWC is determined using the following equation:
IWC — [Facility Flow (FF)/(Stream Low Flow (annual) + FF)) X 100%
The flows and corresponding IWC for the appropriate discharge
point are:
Discharge Point
Stream Low Flow (1E3) Facility Flow IWC
001
002.
0.0 cfs
0.0 cfs
0.0864 MGD (0.134 cfs) 100 %
0.0283 MGD (0.044 cfs) 100 %
The IWC for this permit is 100 %, which represents a wastewater
concentration of 100 % effluent to 0 % receiving stream or
dilution water.
Acute Biomonitoring: Based upon the possibility that certain
parameters (total dissolved solids, ammonia, zinc, total
residual chlorine, and/or other parameters) may be present at
acutely toxic levels in the treated discharge, the Division
believes there is reasonable potential for the discharge to
interfere with attainment of applicable water quality
classifications or standards. In addition, per Section
6.9.7.(4)(a)(i) of the "Regulations for the State Discharge
Permit System", the acute toxicity limit and requirements for
testing effluents for WET testing shall be incorporated into all
new industrial discharge permits. Thus, because of these
conditions, the acute toxicity limit has been incorporated into
the permit and becomes effective immediately. If an
unacceptable level of acute toxicity is identified, the
permittee is required to conduct a toxicity incident response
and identify a control program to eliminate that toxicity, as
identified in Part I.B. of the permit. Once the acute toxicity
limitation is effective, the permittee is required to proceed
with the automatic enforcement compliance schedule, as
identified in Part I.B. of the permit, should a violation occur.
Chronic Biomonitoring: The determination as to whether or not
an individual facility must conduct chronic WET testing is
dependent upon the ratio of the chronic stream low flow (30E3)
to the design flow of the wastewater treatment plant, as well as
the receiving waters classifications. The water quality
standards for inorganic and metal parameters for segment 4 are
based upon agricultural uses, but not upon aquatic life uses.
Since the receiving waters for segment 4 are not classified as
Aquatic Life Class 1, or Aquatic Life Class 2 with aquatic
life -based inorganic and metal numeric standards, chronic WET
testing is not required at this time.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 24. Permit No. C0-0042757
5. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing: (Continued)
The permittee should read the WET testing sections of Part I.A.
and I.B. of the permit carefully, and should note that the test
methods for the toxicity tests are described in detail in the
Division guidance document Guidelines for Conductinz Whole
Effluent Toxicity Tests. This document should be read
thoroughly prior to commencing the required WET testing, to
ensure that the permittee is aware of the various test
conditions that could affect the test results (e.g., sample
holding time).
Part I.B. of the permit contains a very rigorous automatic
compliance schedule which the permittee is required to follow,
if an unacceptable level of toxicity is detected in the
discharge. The permit is primarily conditioned so that Division
notification provisions of the compliance schedule are triggered
from the date of receipt, at the Division, of mailed documents.
As every day beyond the allotted time may constitute a day of
violation, it may be in the best interest of the permittee to
mail documents certified -return receipt requested, so as to
establish a record of the submittal.
The permittee should be aware that some of the conditions
outlined above may be subject to change if the facility
experiences a change in discharge, as outlined in Part II.A.1 of
the permit. Such changes shall be reported to the Division
immediately.
6. Economic Reasonableness Evaluation: Section 25-8-503(8) of the
revised (June 1985) Colorado Water Quality Control Act required
the Division to "determine whether or not any or all of the
water quality standard based effluent limitations are reasonably
related to the economic, environmental, public health and energy
impacts to the public and affected persons, and are i
furtherance of the policies set forth in sections 25-8-192 and
25-8-104."
The Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System, 6.1.0,
further define this requirement under 6.12.0 and state: "Where
economic, environmental, public health and energy impacts to the
public and affected persons have been considered in the
classifications and standards setting process, permits written
to meet the standards may be presumed to have taken into
consideration economic factors unless:
a) A new permit is issued where the discharge was not in
existence at the time of the classification and standards
rulemaking, or
b) In the case of a continuing discharge, additional
information or factors have emerged that were not
anticipated or considered at the time of the classification
and standards rulemaking."
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 25. Permit No. CO -0042757
6. Economic Reasonableness Evaluation: (Continued)
The evaluation for this permit shows that this is a new facility
not in existence at the time of water quality standards
rulemaking. However, based on available data, the resulting
water quality standard -based effluent limitations are determined
to be reasonably related to the economic, environmental, public
health, and energy impacts to the public and affected persons.
If the permittee disagrees with this finding, pursuant to
6.12.0(2)(b) the permittee should submit all pertinent
information to the Division during the public notice period.
7. Antidearadation: On March 5, 1991, an antidegradation assessment
was made by the Division. Since the receiving stream (segment
4) classifications include recreation class 2 and aquatic life
class 2 cold water, an antidegradation review is not required
pursuant to section 3.1.8(1)(b) of the "Basic Standards and
Methodologies for Surface Water". In addition, the dilution
ratio of the stream to the facility discharges is greater than
100 to 1.
B. Monitoring and Reporting
1. Monitoring: Table VI -4 lists the monitoring requirements for
this facility, including sample type and frequency.
Table VI -4 - Monitoring Requirements for Outfalls 001 and 002
Parameter
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Flow, MGD Daily Instantaneous
Oil and Grease, mg/1 f/ Daily Visual
pH, s.u. Daily Grab
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1 Weekly Grab
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 Weekly Grab
BOD5, mg/1 Weekly Grab
COD, mg/1 Weekly Grab
Total Ammonia, mg/1 as N Weekly Grab
Total Arsenic, mg/1 Weekly Grab
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 Monthly Grab
Total Zinc, mg/1 Weekly Grab
Dissolved Radium 226, pCi/1 Weekly Grab
Total Radium 226 and 228, pCi/1 Weekly Grab
Total Natural Uranium, mg/1 Weekly Grab
Whole Effluent Toxicity, Acute Quarterly - See Part I.B.3&4 Grab
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 26. Permit No. CO -0042757
2. Reporting: M -K Ferguson Company must submit a Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) on a monthly basis to the Division.
This report should contain the required summarization of the
test results for parameters shown in Table VI -4 and Part I.B.1
of the permit. See the permit, Part I.B.1 for details on such
submission.
3. Additional Monitoring and Reporting:
a.) One -Time Analysis: A one-time monitoring
required for the following parameters at
the disposal site, as indicated below.
a.) One -Time Analysis: (Cont.)
Total Boron
Total Cyanide
Total Recoverable Cadmium
Trivalent Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Recoverable Copper
Total Recoverable Lead
Total Recoverable Nickel
Total Recoverable Selenium
Total Recoverable Vanadium
analysis is
one discharge from
Toluene
Alpha -BHC
Acetone
2,4-D
2,4,5 -TP
Gross Alpha Particle Activity
(excluding Uranium and Radon)
Gross Beta Particle Activity
Since some of the inorganic, metal, and/or radioactive
parameters have been found at higher concentrations in
untreated groundwater monitoring wells at the processing
site or no analysis for certain parameters has been
submitted, and there is no actual analysis of the treated
discharge waters, these parameters will need to be further
assessed at the disposal site in the one-time analysis. A
one-time analysis of the inorganic and metal parameters
indicated above is also necessary to assess the impact upon
these water quality standards in segment 4.
Another possible source of wastes that is relevant for this
permit are certain organic parameters such as wood
preservative chemicals or pesticides that have been detected
to a limited extent in the ground water monitoring wells (or
in the tailings or sludge) as described in the facility
Remedial Action Plan. Thus, these chemicals will be
required in the one-time discharge analysis.
Thus, the monitoring and analysis shall be performed
beginning at the first instance of discharge from each
outfall at the Rifle disposal site. This data shall be
submitted to the Permits and Enforcement Section within 45
days of the sampling dates of discharge. See Part I.3.12 of
the permit.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 27. Permit No. CO -0042757
C. Additional Terms and Conditions
Office
Code
1. Materials Containment Plan:
The permittee will be required to submit a Materials Containment
Plan. The plan shall address the prevention and containment of
spills of materials used, processed or stored at the facility
which, if spilled, would have a reasonable probability of having
a visible or otherwise detrimental impact on waters of the
State. This plan is to be submitted within 90 days of the
effective date of the permit. See Part I.F of the permit.
2. Best Management Practices (BMP) Requirements:
BMP requirements for optimization of operations and management
are included in the permit to minimize the potential impact of
any discharge which might occur. BMP requirements are
applicable not only to all the discharge points and the
retention basin, but also to any other on-site facilities,
including the recirculation pond, any storm water
diversion/drainage ditches on site, the disposal cell, and
materials and/or waste storage areas. Thus, Best Management
Practices must be continually implemented to ensure that nothing
on-site will impact state waters See Part I.C. of the permit.
D. Specific Compliance Requirements
1. Submissions to the Division: The following are specific
compliance items which require permittee action. Please check
the referenced parts of the permit for details on what is
required.
Event
90208 Storm Exemption Report
90408 Prior Demonstration
of Compliance
90508 Materials Containment Plan
Permit
Citation
Due Date
Part I.3.13 90 days after effective
date of permit
Part I.B.11 prior to discharge
Part I.F 90 days after effective
date of permit
90608 Inorganic/Radioactive Part I.3.12
- One Time Analysis
within 45 days of the
sample date (at the first
instance of discharge)
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division
Rationale - Page 28. Permit No. CO -0042757
VII. REFERENCES
A. Colorado Dept. of Health, Water Quality Control Commission. Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (3.1.0). Denver:
CDH, as revised 10/8/91.
B. Colorado Dept. of Health, Water Quality Control Commission.
Regulations for Effluent Limitations (10.1.0). Denver: CDH, as
revised 1/31/90.
C. Colorado Dept. of Health, Water Quality Control Commission.
Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System (6.1.0). Denver:
CDH, as revised 11/4/91.
D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Criteria 1972
("Blue Book"). Wash., D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office,
0.3-73-003, 3/73.
E. 40 CFR Part 440. Code of Federal Regulations. Protection of
Environment. Wash., D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, revised as
of 7/1/89.
Don Holmer
January 20, 1992
VIII. CHANGES TO PERMIT AND RATIONALE FOLLOWING PUBLIC NOTICE
M -K Ferguson Company submitted only one comment letter dated February
10, 1992 regarding this particular permit. In this letter, the Division
was notified that the designated legal contact person has been changed
for all of the M -K Ferguson permits. There were no other comments
regarding the permit for the Rifle Estes Gulch Disposal facility. Thus,
the only change in the permit and the rationale was that the legal
contact on page 1 of the rationale was changed to Mr. R.E. Lawrence.
Don Holmer
April 17, 1992
Permit No.: C0-0042757
County: Garfield
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") the
M -K FERGUSON COMPANY
is authorized to discharge from the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action
Project at the Rifle Estes Gulch Disposal Site
located in: the SW 1/4 of Sec. 14, T5S, R93W, approximately 5 miles north of
Rifle on the State Highway 13,.as shown in figures 1 and 2 of the permit.
to Estes Gulch, tributary to Government Creek
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth in Part I, and II hereof. All discharges authorized'
,herein shall be consistant with the terms and conditions of this permit.
The applicant may demand an adjudicatory hearing within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of the final permit determination, per Regulation for the State
Discharge Permit System 6.8.0 (1). Should the applicant choose to contest any
of the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements or other conditions
contained herein, the applicant must comply with Section 24-4-104 CRS 1973 and
the Regulation for the State Discharge Permit System. Failure to contest any
such effluent limitation, monitoring requirement, or other condition,
constitutes consent to the condition by the Applicant.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
February 28, 1997
Issued and Signed this 23rd day of April, 1992 '
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
David Holm, Director
Water Quality Control Division
Code: i - 1 Date: 2 - 84
CERTIFIED L� �/y^�,..;ee� 533
I�H1 E SIGNED
PART I
Page la of 19
Permit No. C0-0042757
A. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Effluent Limitations - Discharge Points 001 and 002
Beginning immediately and lasting through February 28, 1997, the
permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall serial numbers: 001,
the effluent pipe from the wastewater treatment plant, and 002, the
emergency spillway structure from the wastewater retention basin at
the Rifle Estes Gulch Disposal Site. Both discharges are prior to
entering Estes Gulch, as shown in figure 3 of the permit.
In accordance with the Water Quality Control Commission Regulations
for Effluent Limitations, Section 10.1.3, and State Discharge Permit
System Regulations, Section 6.9.2, 5 C.C.R. 1002-2, the permitted
discharge shall not contain effluent parameter concentrations which
exceed the following limitations, discharge more than the mass
pollutant loadings specified below, or exceed the specified flow
limitation. There shall be no simultaneous discharge from outfalls
001 and 002.
Effluent Parameter Discharge Limitations
30 -Day Avg a/ 7 -Day Avg a/ Daily Max J
Flow, MGD (Discharge Point 001) 0.0864 N/A Report
(Discharge Point 002) Report N/A Report
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 20 N/A 30
BOD5, mg/1 Report Report N/A
COD, mg/1 N/A N/A 500
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1 N/A N/A 0.5
Total Ammonia, mg/1 as N 320 N/A Report
Total Arsenic, mg/1 0.1 N/A 1.0
Total Zinc, mg/1 0.5 N/A 1.0
Dissolved Radium 226, pCi/1 3.0 N/A 10.0
Total Radium 226 and 228, pCi/1 5.0 N/A 30
Total Natural Uranium, mg/1 2.0 N/A 4.0
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 Report N/A 515
Whole Effluent Toxicity, Acute N/A N/A IWC 1006 / 50% J
pH - (Standard Units) shall remain between 6.5 and 9.0 2/.
Oil and Grease shall not exceed 10 mg/1 J nor shall there be a visible sheen,
see footnote LI. There shall be no discharge of floating solids.
See Part I.C. for Footnotes
Code: i - 2 Date: 1-84, revised 12-87, revised 12-88
B.
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1.
PART I
Page lb of 19
Permit No. C0-0042757
Frequency and Sample Type - Outfalls 001 and 002
In order to obtain an indication of the probable compliance or non-
compliance with the effluent limitations specified in Section A, the
permittee shall monitor all effluent parameters at the following
frequencies:
Effluent Parameter
Measurement Frequency /
Flow, MGD
Oil and Grease, mg/1 J
pH, s.u.
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
BOD5, mg/1
COD, mg/1
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1
Total Ammonia, mg/1 as N
Total Arsenic, mg/1
Total Zinc, mg/1
Dissolved Radium 226, pCi/1
Total Radium 226 and 228, pCi/1
Total Natural Uranium, mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 g/
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) - Acute
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly J
Quarterly - Part
Sample Type J
Instantaneous
Visual
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
I.3.3 & 4 Grab
Sampling by the permittee for compliance with the monitoring
requirements specified above shall be performed at the following
locations: outfall serial number 001, the effluent pipe from the
wastewater treatment plant, and outfall 002, the emergency spillway
structure from the wastewater retention basin at the Rifle Estes Gulch
Disposal Site. Both discharges are prior to entering Estes Gulch, as
shown in figure 3 of the permit.
See Part I.0 for footnotes.
Code: i - 3 Date: 1-84, revised 2-87, revised 12-88
PART I
Page lc of 19
Permit No. CO -0042757
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
2. Reporting of Data
Reporting of the data gathered in compliance with Part I.B.1 shall be
on a monthly basis. Monitoring results obtained during the previous
month shall be summarized and reported on Division approved discharge
monitoring report forms, postmarked no later than the 28th day of the
following month. If no discharge occurs during the reporting period,
"No Discharge" shall be reported.
Duplicate signed copies of the above report forms shall be submitted
to the following addresses:
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Attention: Permits and Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Management Division
NPDES Branch 8WM-C
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
3. Frequency and Sample Type - Acute WET Testing - Discharge Points 001
and 002
Quarterly test results shall be reported along with the Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) submitted for the end of the reporting
calendar quarter (i.e., WET testing results for the calendar quarter
ending March 31 shall be reported with the DMR due April 28, with the
remaining WET testing reports submitted with DMRs due each July 28,
October 28 and January 28). The results shall be submitted on the
Acute Toxicity Test report form, available from the Division. Copies
of these reports are to be submitted to both the Division and EPA.
The permittee shall conduct each acute WET test in general accordance
with methods described in the Division guidance document entitled
Guidelines for Conducting Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests. The
permittee'shall conduct an acute 48-hour WET test using Ceriodaphnia
sp., and an acute 96 -hour WET test using fathead minnows. Acute tests
will be replacement static tests of a single effluent grab sample.
4. Accelerated Testing - Discharge Points 001 and 002
If an individual toxicity test shows toxicity at any concentration
less than or equal to the following Instream Waste Concentration (IWC)
Code: i - 4 Date: 1-84, revised 2-87, revised 12-88
WET language revised 12/30/91
PART I
Page ld of 19
Permit No. CO -0042757
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
4. Accelerated Testinv - Discharge Points 001 and 002 (Continued)
or if 50% species mortality in any dilution (including 100% effluent)
is detected in any acute WET test conducted in accordance with this
permit, the permittee shall notify the Division verbally within 24
hours and in writing (date of receipt) within 5 days of receipt of
written lab test results and proceed with the following compliance
schedule.
Discharge Point IWC
001 100 %
Within 7 days of becoming aware of the toxicity, the permittee shall
then begin weekly accelerated testing of the discharge with whichever
species has proven (through the first instance of toxicity) to be the
most sensitive. The permittee will continue such testing with one
species until 2 consecutive weekly tests demonstrate acute toxicity, 2
consecutive weekly tests demonstrate no acute toxicity or a maximum of
5 weekly tests have been conducted. If no acute toxicity was
demonstrated in the 2 consecutive weekly tests or in 3 of the 5 weekly
tests, the permitee shall resume routine quarterly testing. In all
other cases, a pattern of toxicity has been demonstrated and the
permittee shall proceed with the Preliminary Toxicity Investigation.
When a pattern of toxicity is demonstrated, the permittee shall orally
notify the Division within 24 hours of becoming aware of the test
result which demonstrates the pattern of toxicity and in writing within
5 days (date of receipt) after receiving the written lab test result
which demonstrates the pattern of toxicity.
5. Preliminary Toxicity Investigation - Discharge Points 001 and 002
The permittee will have 15 working days from the date of demonstration
of the pattern of toxicity to complete a preliminary toxicity
investigation and submit (date of receipt) the results to the Division,
in writing. The "date of demonstration" shall be the date the permitte
becomes aware of the final test result that established the pattern of
toxicity. The preliminary toxicity investigation may include, but is
not limited to: additional chemical and biological monitoring,
examination of pretreatment program records, examination of discharge
monitoring reports, evaluation of treatment processes and chemical use,
inspection of material storage and transfer areas to determine if a
spill may have occurred, and similar procedures.
If the preliminary toxicity investigation identifies a probable
toxicant and/or a probable source of toxicity, the permittee shall
WET language revised 12/30/91
PART I
Page le of 19
Permit No. C0-0042757
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
5. Preliminary Toxicity Investigation - Discharges 001 and 002 (Continued)
submit, as part of its final report results, written notification to
that effect to the Division. Within 30 days of completing the
preliminary toxicity investigation, the permittee shall submit (date of
receipt) for the Division's approval a control program to control
effluent toxicity, and shall proceed to implement such plan within 7
days following receipt of written approval from the Division.
If no probable explanation for toxicity is identified in the 15 -day
preliminary toxicity investigation, a Phase I Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation (TRE) is required. The permittee shall notify the Division,
as part of its final report, of its intent to proceed with the Phase I
TRE.
If toxicity disappears during the preliminary. toxicity investigation,
the permittee shall submit written notification to that effect to the
Division. The Division may require the permittee to conduct
accelerated testing to demonstrate the continued absence of toxicity.
If, after completing any Division directed accelerated testing, no
acute toxicity is found to exist, the permittee shall resume normal
quarterly testing.
6. Phase I TRE. - Discharge Points 001 and 002
The Phase I TRE performed by the permittee shall be in general
accordance with Methods for Toxicity Reduction Evaluations, Phase I
Toxicity Characterization Procedures (September, 1988) published by
EPA, or in accordance with procedures approved by the Division. If
only one species demonstrated toxicity during accelerated testing, then
that species alone may be used in the Phase I TRE. The permittee has
45 days from the submission (date of receipt) of the final report on
the preliminary toxicity investigation to complete the Phase I TRE and
submit (date of receipt) a report to the Division on the results of the
study.
If the Phase I TRE identifies a probable toxicant and/or a probable
source of toxicity, the permittee shall submit written notification to
that effect to the Division as part of the report. Within 30 days of
submission (date of receipt) of the Phase I TRE, the permittee shall
submit (date of receipt) for the Division's approval a control program
to control WET, and shall proceed to implement such plan within 7 days
following receipt of written approval from the Division.
If the Phase I TRE fails to identify a probable toxicant and/or a
probable source of toxicity, the permittee shall notify the Division of
its findings and proceed with the Phase II TRE.
WET language revised 12/30/91
Part I
Page if of 19
Permit No. C0-0042757
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
6. Phase I TRE - Discharge Points 001 and 002 (Continued)
If toxicity disappears during the Phase I TRE, the permittee shall
submit written notification to that effect to the Division. The
Division may require the permittee to conduct accelerated testing to
demonstrate the continued absence of toxicity. If, after completing
any Division directed accelerated testing, no acute toxicity is found
to exist, the permittee shall resume normal quarterly testing.
7. Phase II TRE - Discharge Points 001 and 002
A plan for a Phase II TRE shall be submitted (date of receipt) to the
Division by the permittee within 60 days of the submission (date of
receipt) of the Phase I TRE Report. The Phase II TRE, as submitted to
or revised by the Division, shall be incorporated into the permit as a
modified compliance schedule.
The Phase II TRE plan shall include the scope, methods, procedures,
reporting requirements, and schedules. A Phase II TRE may follow
either of two directions, as appropriate: toxicant treatability
studies, or toxicant/source identification and control studies.
Toxicant treatability studies are designed to assess the feasibility of
eliminating WET via addition or modification of treatment processes at
the wastewater treatment facility.
Toxicant/source identification and control efforts are designed to
identify toxicants, identify the sources of toxicants, and control
whole effluent toxicity by eliminating the introduction of toxicants
into the wastewater treatment facility. Toxicity identification
studies performed by the permittee shall be in general accordance with
accepted methods for Toxicity Identification Procedures and Toxicity
Confirmation Procedures. The Phase II TRE permit conditions may be
amended, if so requested and justified by the permittee.
The Phase II TRE report shall indicate the results of the Phase II TRE
study. If the Phase II TRE results in the identification of the
toxicants, the sources of toxicants or treatment for elimination of the
toxicant, the permittee shall submit for Division approval a control
program to control WET within 60 days of submission (date of receipt)
of the Phase II TRE Report, and shall proceed to implement such plan
within 7 days following receipt of written approval from the Division.
If toxicity disappears during the Phase II TRE, the permittee shall
submit written notification to that effect to the Division. The
Division may require the permittee to conduct accelerated testing to
demonstrate the continued absence of toxicity. If, after completing
any Division directed accelerated testing, no acute toxicity is found
to exist, the permittee shall resume normal quarterly testing.
WET language revised 12/30/91
Part I
Page lg of 19
Permit No. CO -0042757
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
8. Control Program - Discharge Points 001 and 002
If required pursuant to Part I.B. of this permit, the permittee shall
develop a control program to eliminate WET, through the identification
and elimination of any toxicants or toxicant sources responsible for
WET, or through the identification and implementation of toxicant
treatability processes. The control program, along with any
cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the costs of construction
bear a reasonable relationship to the resulting benefits, shall be
submitted within the specified time frames. Such cost benefit analysis
shall be used in accordance with Section 25-8-503(8) and (9), C.R.S.
The control program, as submitted to or revised by the Division, may be
incorporated into the permit.
A control program may, include, but shall not be limited to: additional
pretreatment requirements imposed on specific indirect permittees by
POTW's, modification of internal source control programs by industries,
modifications of treatment plants, and/or best management practices for
spills, leaks, etc.
9. Toxicity Incident Closure - Discharge Points 001 and 002
If WET is controlled through implementation of numeric limits for
specific toxicants, through a control program eliminating toxicants
frcm the waste stream, or through the implementation of treatment
processes, or if WET disappears and Division required accelerated
testing demonstrates the continued absence of toxicity, the toxicity
incident response shall be considered closed and normal quarterly
monitoring shall resume.
If the permittee completes all required phases of the toxicity incident
response specified in compliance schedules, and is unable either to
identify the causative toxicants and their sources or to identify
feasible treatment options, the permittee may petition the Division for
relief from further investigation and testing, consistent with the
permit regulations.
10. Toxicity Reopener - Discharge Points 001 and 002
This permit may be reopened and modified (following proper
administrative procedures) to include new compliance dates, additional
or modified numerical permit limitation, a new or different compliance
schedule, a change in the whole effluent toxicity testing protocol, or
any other conditions related to the control of toxicants if one or more
of the following events occur:
a. Toxicity has been demonstrated in the effluent and the permit does
not contain an toxicity limitation.
Revised 12/30/91
Part I
Page lh of 19
Permit No. C0-0042757
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
10. Toxicity Reopener - Discharge Points 001 and 002 (Continued)
b. The TRE results indicate that the toxicant(s) represent
pollutant(s) that may be controlled with specific numerical
limits, and the permit issuing authority agrees that the numerical
controls are the most appropriate course of action.
c. The TRE reveals other unique conditions or characteristics which,
in the opinion of the permit issuing authority, justify the
incorporation of unanticipated special conditions in the permit.
11. Prior Demonstration of Compliance - Discharge Points 001 and 002
In the case where toe drainage from the disposal cell, or other
potentially contaminated drainage sources, should enter the retention
pond, the permittee shall immediately notify the Water Quality Control
Division. Prior to the initial discharge of this contributing
wastewater source to Estes Gulch from discharge points 001 and 002
being allowed, the permittee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Permits and Enforcement Section of the Division that the treated
effluent is in compliance with all the effluent limitations in Part
I.A.1 of the permit, including a demonstration that the 50% acute
toxicity level in WET testing has been achieved.
If the toe drainage sources are contributing to discharges from the
retention pond, then this permit will need to be amended to include
this new contributing wastewater source prior to discharge being
allowed. Once the items specified above have been demonstrated and
reviewed by the Division and the permit amendment is in effect, then a
continued discharge for this contributing wastewater source will be
allowed.
A prior demonstration of compliance is not necessary for discharges
involving only precipitation and stormwater runoff sources.
12. Special Monitoring: One -Time Analysis
In order to determine the general quality of water discharged at this
facility, the permittee is required to perform a one-time analysis for
the following parameters at the specified discharge points. The
monitoring and analysis shall be performed at the first instance of
discharge after this permit becomes effective. Following analysis,
the data shall be submitted to the Permits and Enforcement Section,
within forty-five (45) days of the sampling date.
Parameters
Discharge Points Sample Type
See on Next Page 001 and 002
for all parameters
Code: i - 6 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
Grab for
all parameters
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
12. Special Monitoring: One -Time Analysis
Total Boron
Total Cyanide
Total Recoverable Cadmium
Trivalent Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Recoverable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Part I
Page li of 19
Permit No. C0-0042757
(Continued)
Toluene
Alpha -BHC
Acetone
2,4-D
2,4,5 -TP
Gross Alpha Particle Activity
(excluding Uranium and Radon)
Gross Beta Particle Activity
If evaluation of the data demonstrates a definite or probable
violation of water quality standards and/or basic standards, the
permit may be amended to incorporate additional monitoring and
limitations, as allowed under Part II.3.5 of this permit. Additional
monitoring may also be required where the detection limit for a
parameter is above the appropriate water quality standards..
13. Storm Exemption - Facilities Permitted to Discharge - Outfall 002
If the permittee intends to use the 10 -year, 24-hour storm exemption,
a report must be submitted within 90 days after the effective date of
this permit, documenting that the facility is designed, constructed
and is being maintained to contain or treat:
a) The maximum volume of wastewater which would be generated by the
facility during a 24-hour period without an increase in volume
from precipitation; and
b) The maximum volume of wastewater resulting from a 10 -year, 24-hour
precipitation event, including the volume which would result from
all areas contributing runoff to the individual treatment facility
(i.e., all runoff not diverted from the active mining area or the
mill area).
In addition, if discharge occurs as a result of the 10 -year, 24-hour
storm volume being exceeded and the permittee wishes to claim an
exemption from technology based effluent limitations, the permittee
shall submit, within 5 days of the said discharge, documentation that
the facilities were maintained to contain or treat the previously
specified volumes. The permittee must also submit documentation of
the storm event, including the precipitation recorded at the closest
official precipitation gauge station (or the permittee's own gauge),
the volume of storm runoff produced and the steps taken to maintain
treatment and minimize the amount of overflow.
PART I
Page lj of 19
Permit No. CO -0042757
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
13. Storm Exemption - Facilities Permitted to Discharge - Outfall 002
(Continued)
All data/documentation required by this section which can not be
reported on applicable discharge monitoring report forms (DMR's) shall
be reported in letter form as an attachment to the DMR.
For claiming a storm water exemption, M -K Ferguson must also
adequately demonstrate that all available management, containment, and
treatment options have been optimally used.
In addition, for this storm event exemption to be claimed for
discharge point 002, M -K Ferguson Company must demonstrate that the
following water quality standard -based levels are attained:
pH 6.5 - 9.0 s.u.
Total Ammonia, as N 320 mg/1
Total Recoverable Arsenic 0.1 mg/1
Total Recoverable Zinc 2.0 mg/1
Total Radium 226 + 228 5.0 pCi/1
Total Natural Uranium 98 mg/1
Submittal of documentation of containment, maintenance, and
precipitation records above does not exempt the permittee from the
notification requirements of PART II.A.3. of this permit.
PART I
Page lk of 19
Permit No. CO -0042757
C. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS
1. In order to effectively manage the area to minimize the potential risk
of any unintentional release of pollutants, at a minimum the following
practices shall be followed for the wastewater retention basin and
recirculation pond, collection and/or diversion ditches, and other
facility/treatment/storage processes utilized at the site. Management
practices shall be followed to ensure that the facility design
capacities are maintained and that any discharges are reduced to
minimal impact and minimal frequency. Records pertaining to best
management practices should be kept in a log.
a) Manage water levels in the pond so that permit limitations are met
and there is an adequate prevention of any unauthorized potential
overflows or bypassess.
b) Ensure that materials are compatable with treatment processes,
that incompatable materials do not interfere with treatment or
storage processes, and that safety, health, and fire hazard
prevention measures are practiced.
c) Ensure that adequate land application system measures are
practiced (if land application is used) at the facility to ensure
that no surface runoff ocpurs to surface waters.
d) Manage the facility to. prevent tailings material contaminated
water, spills, or other contaminants from entering any onsite
diversion ditches and/or drainage ditches that may enter surface
waters. Maintain facilities in good working conditions and use
appropriate preventative measures to ensure adequate materials
containment and a minimal pollution impact on site with respect to
stormwater runoff, diversion ditches, drainage ditches, and any
surface waters.
PART I
Page 1L of 19
Permit No. CO -0042757
NEW RIFLE
SITE
1/2
•
TAUGHENBAUGH
MESA
0
112
1
SCALE IN MILES
•
• •
•
Figure 1
M -K Ferguson Company
Rifle Estes Gulch Disposal Site
Facility Location
EXISTING WATER WELLS WITHIN A TWO-MILE RADIUS OF THE OLD RIFLE,
NEW RIFLE, AND ESTES GULCH SITES
GRASS MESA
LEGEND
• - WELL LOCATION
4 - NUMBER OF WELLS AT ONE LOCATION
VSR- MUNICIPAL WELL FOR THE VILLAGE
OF SOUTH RIFLE
❑ ALLUVIUM
SUDDEN CHANGE IN
SLOPE (DOWNWARD)
PART I Page lm of 19 Permit
No.:CO-0042757
v95
C
lam 0
v=im = r %L\ Th ~f ,
REFERENCE: RIFLE COLO. QUADRANGLE,
USGS 1982.
Figure 2
M -K Ferguson Company
EXHIBIT A -I
au^
KN
1000 0 1000 2000 3000
SCALE
ESTES GULCH
DISPOSAL SITE AND VICINITY
FEET
OUTFALL 001
OUTFALL 002
'1
PART I
Page In of 19
Permit No.: CO -0042757
8
W
4
N
EXHIBIT A-2
V)
J
= J
UZtai
CD a O
UJ
N
W 0
CO
;000.
1111111 �,I.,.�-1
.�\ \ /mo%%
RT DRAINAGE DITCH
a
ii
M -K Ferguson Company
W
a
5
z
0
kJ
0
un+
!:!;:i1;171.4,FNS=w
FHPK
E l x1=1061 f lr 0
1
:7
U6
ta
111
,1
•
g•
r•
r
•
. H• ;viz®
PART I
Page to of 19
Permit No.. CO -0042757
4s
.1.
•r -!r Iu1z0
•`Fr 4 e
0
�. SFr®
1•
bi
E
...� 6. ,:-10
1-
1.1:313"3'3'.
1111111 111
tItI
;It I
11111
11111111
1111111111 1111
t.
,11
elJ
9I
J
PART I
Page 2 of 19
D. FOOTNOTES - APPLICABLE TO PRECEDING PAGES
a/ - The thirty (30) day average shall be determined by the arithmetic
mean of all samples collected during a thirty (30) consecutive -day
period. Samples shall not be used for more than one (1) reporting
period. (Not applicable to fecal coliform determinations - please
see footnote m/.)
b/ - The seven (7) day average shall be determined by the arithmetic mean
of all samples taken in a seven (7) day period. Samples may not be
used for more than one (1) reporting period. (Not applicable to
fecal coliform determinations - please see footnote m/.)
c/ - This limitation shall be determined by a single sample or set of
samples as required by Part I.B., Sample Type.
d/ - When the measurement frequency indicated is quarterly, the samples
shall be collected during March, June, September and December, if a
continual discharge occurs. If the discharge is intermittent, then
samples shall be collected during the period that discharge occurs.
If the permittee, using the approved analytical methods, monitors
any parameter more frequently than required by this permit, then 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/ - Definitions of Sample Type
1. 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.
2. A "grab" sample, for monitoring requirements, is a single "dip
and take" sample.
3. An "instantaneous" measurement, for monitoring requirements, is
a single reading, observation, or measurement performed on site.
4. A "continuous" measurement, for flow monitoring requirements, is
a measurement obtained from an automatic recording device which
continually measures flow.
5. A "visual" observation, for oil and grease monitoring
requirements, is observing the discharge to check for the
presence of a visible sheen or floating oil.
6. An "in-situ" measurement, for monitoring requirements, is
defined as a single reading, observation or measurement taken in
the field at the point of discharge.
Code: i - 16 Date: 1-84, revised 10-88, revised 12-88
PART I
Page 3 of 19
D. FOOTNOTES
7. A "24 hour composite" sample is a combination of at least eight
(8) sample aliquots of at least 100 milliliters, collected at
equally spaced intervals during the operating hours of a facility
over a twenty-four (24) hour period. For volatile pollutants,
aliquots must be combined in the laboratory immediately before
analysis. The composite must be flow proportional; either the
time interval between each aliquot or the volume of each aliquot
must be proportional to either the wastewater or effluent flow at
the time of sampling or the total wastewater or effluent flow
since the collection of the previous aliquot. Aliquots may be
collected manually or automatically.
f/ - In the event an oil sheen, or floating oil is observed, a grab sample
shall be collected, 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.
- Where based on a minimum of 5 samples, the permittee demonstrates, to
the satisfaction of the Water Quality Control Division, that the
level of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the effluent can be
calculated based upon the level of electrical conductivity, the
permittee may measure and report TDS in terms of electrical
conductivity.
h/ - TDS shall be sampled on a monthly basis until six samples have been
analyzed. A report of "No Discharge" shall not be counted as one of
the six samples. Thereafter, monitoring shall continue on a
quarterly basis. Following submittal of the initial six sets of
monthly data, the Division shall determine whether the permittee is
required to submit a report addressing salt removal in accordance
with Regulations For Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity
Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program, 3.10.0. If the salinity
report is required, the Division shall so advise the permittee by
letter and the report shall be submitted within 180 days.
i/ - This parameter is subject to "Noncompliance Notification"
requirements of Part II.A.3.(b)(v) of this permit.
j/ - Procedure for determining settleable solids is contained in 40 CFR
434.64. The method detection limit for measuring settleable solids
under this part shall be 0.4 ml/1.
k/ - Should a precipitation event occur which is greater than the 10 -year,
24-hour event, the permittee shall submit rain gauge or other
appropriate documentation in order for an exemption to be claimed.
In lieu of such documentation, limitations contained in Part
I.A.1.(b), shall apply. Documentation shall be reported as an
attachment to the Discharge Monitoring Report for the appropriate
period.
$/
Code: 1 - 16 Date: 1-84, revised 10-88, revised 12-88
PART I
Page 4 of 19
D. FOOTNOTES
J - When the most sensitive analytical method which complies with Part
I.F.2. of the permit 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 which are, in some cases, less than or equial to
the detection limit) are as follows:
Total Residual Chlorine 0.05 mg/1
Total Recoverable Cadmium 0.0003 mg/1
Total Recoverable Copper 0.005 mg/1
Total Recoverable Lead 0.005 mg/1
Total Mercury 0.00025 mg/1
Total Recoverable Nickel 0.05 mg/1
Total Recoverable Silver 0.0002 mg/1
Total Recoverable Zinc 0.05 mg/1
The present lowest method detection limits for the dissolved and also
potentially dissolved metal parameters are the same as indicated above
for the total recoverable parameters.
m/ Fecal coliform bacteria average concentration shall be determined by
the geometric mean of all samples collected during a thirty (30)
consecutive day period. The 7 day average shall be determined by the
geometric mean of all samples taken during a seven (7) day period.
r/ The potentially dissolved metal fraction is defined in The Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water 3.1.0 (5CCR 1002-8) 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 0.4 or 0.45 -UM membrane filter. Note the
"potentially dissolved" method cannot be used where nitric acid will
interfere with the analytical procedure used for the constituent
measaured.
-
There shall be no acute toxicity in the effluent from this discharge
point. The acute toxicity limitation is exceeded if 1) a statistically
significant difference in mortality (at the 95% confidence level) is
observed for either species between the control and any dilution less
than or equal to the identified IWC or 2) a species mortality in any
dilution of effluent (including 100% effluent) exceeds 50%.
Code: i - 17 Date: 9-84, revised 12-87, revised 8-89
PART I
.Page 5 of 19
E• REPORTING
1. Signatory Requirements
All reports required for submittal shall be signed and certified for
accuracy by the permittee in accord with the following criteria:
a) 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;
b) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner;
c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor;
d) 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.
Code: i - 18 Date: 1-84, revised 8-85, revised 3-87, revised 6-87,
revised 12-88
PART I
Page 6 of 19
F. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Materials Containment Plan
Pursuant to Sections 6.9.3 (5) and (6)(b) of the Regulations for the
State Discharge Permit System, the permittee is required to submit a
Materials Containment Plan. Such a plan shall be submitted to the
Permits and Enforcement Section, Water Quality Control Division within
ninety (90) days after the effective date of this permit and must be
implemented. The plan shall include information and procedures for
the prevention and containment of spills of materials used, processed
or stored at the facility which if spilled would have a reasonable
probability of having a visible or otherwise detrimental impact on
waters of the State 1/ 2/. The plan shall include, but not
necessarily be limited:
a) A history of spills which have occurred in the three (3) years
preceding the effective date of this permit. The history shall
include a causation of the spills and a discussion of preventative
measures designed to prevent them from reoccurring;
b) A description of the reporting system which will be used to notify
responsible facility management, the State Water Quality Control
Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, downstream water
users within 5 miles downstream of the facility, and local health
officials;
c) A description of preventative facilities (including overall
facility plot) which prevent, contain, or treat spills and
unplanned discharges;
d) A list which includes the volumes or quantities of all materials
used, processed, or stored at the facility which represent a
potential spill threat to surface waters. The location of stored
material shall be indicated on the facility plot submitted for
item c;
1/ If there is no such material present at the site, this shall be indicated
in writing and submitted to the Division for review.
2/ If there is material present but the permittee feels there is not a
reasonable probability of a spill impacting waters of the State, this
shall be documented in writing and submitted to the Division for review.
This documentation shall include; 1) distance to nearest surface waters,
and; 2) a detailed description of any structure which prohibits the
release of material onto the ground or into a conveyance system.
Code: i - 20 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART I
Page 7 of 19
F. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Materials Containment Plan (Continued)
e) An implementation schedule for additional facilities which might
be required in item c, but which are not yet operational;
f) A list of available outside contractors, agencies, or other
sources which could be utilized in the event of a spill in order
to clean up its effects. If the facility is capable of handling
spills in-house, this shall be documented in the plan;.
g)
Provision for yearly review and updating of the contingency plan,
plus resubmission of the plan to the Division if conditions and/or
procedures at the facility change the original plan.
The foregoing provisions shall in no way render inapplicable those
requirements imposed by Section 311 of the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, regulations promulgated thereunder, the Colorado
Water Quality Control Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
This plan should be prepared by a professional engineer registered in
the State of Colorado.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as allowing any discharge
to waters of the State other than through the discharge points
specifically authorized in this permit. Nothing herein contained
shall be construed as excusing any liability the permittee might have,
civil or criminal, for any spill.
The submittal of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
(SPCC Plan) as required by 40 CFR Part 112 may satisfy all or part of
this requirement. Should additional materials exist on site which are
not addressed. in the SPCC Plan, addressing those materials as per the
above is required.
Code: i - 21 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART I
Page 8 of 19
G. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. 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.
2. Analytical and Sampling Methods for Monitoring,
Analytical and sampling methods utilized. by the discharger shall
conform to Colorado Regulations for Effluent Limitations (10.1.5),
and to regulations published pursuant to Section 304 (h) of the Clean
Water Act.
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.
3. 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 (3) 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 permittee or when requested by the Division or
Regional Administrator of EPA.
Code: i - 22 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
G•
PART I
Page 9 of 19
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
4. Flow Measuring Device
If not already a part of the permitted facility, within ninety (90)
days after the effective date of the permit, a flow measuring device
shall be installed to give representative values of effluent
quantities at the respective discharge points. Unless specifically
exempted, or modified in Part I.B.2 of this permit, a flow measuring
device will be applicable at all designated discharge points.
At the request of the Water Quality Control Division, or the
Environmental Protection Agency, the permittee shall show proof of
the accuracy of any flow -measuring device used in obtaining data
submitted in the monitoring report. The flow -measuring device must
indicate values within ten (10) percent of the actual flow being
discharged from the facility.
Code: i - 23 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
Page 10 of 19
The permittee shall inform the Division (Permits and Enforcement
Section) in writing of any intent to construct, install, or alter any
process, facility, or activity that is likely to result in a new or
altered discharge, in and shall furnish the Division such plans and
specifications which the Division deems reasonably necessary to
evaluate the effect on the discharge and receiving stream.
The permittee shall submit this notice within two (2) weeks after
making a determination to perform the type of activity referred to in
the preceding paragraph. Process modifications include, but are not
limited to, the introduction of any new pollutant not previously
identified in the permit, or any other modifications which may result
in a discharge of a quantity or quality different from that which was
evaluated in the drafting of the permit including subsequent
amendments. Following such notice, the permittee shall be required
to submit a aew CDPS application and the permit may be modified to
specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited, if the new
or altered discharge might be inconsistent with the conditions of the
existing permit. In no case shall the permittee implement such
change without first notifying the Division.
2. 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 unintentional release of solid or liquid material
which may cause 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.
Code: i - 24 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 11 of 19
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
3. 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 permittee shall, at a minimum,
provide the Water Quality Control Division and EPA with the
following information:
(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 instances of
noncompliance orally within twenty-four (24) hours from the time
the permittee becomes aware of the noncompliance, and shall mail
to the Division a written report within five (5) days after
becoming aware of the noncompliance:
(i) Any instance of noncompliance which may endanger health
or the environment;
(ii) Any unanticipated bypass;
(iii) Any upset which causes an exceedance of any effluent
limitation in the permit;
(iv) Any spill which causes any effluent limitation to be
violated;
(v) Daily maximum violations for any toxic pollutants or
hazardous substances limited by PART I -A of this permit
and specified as requiring 24 hour notification.
c) The permittee shall report all other instances of non-compliance
not requiring 24-hour notification at the time Discharge
Monitoring Reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the
information listed in sub -paragraph (a) of this section.
Code: i - 25 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 12 of 19
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
4. Submission of Incorrect or Incomplete 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 -application information which was not submitted
or any additional information needed to correct any erroneous
information previously submitted.
5. Bypass
The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause
effluent limitations to be exceeded, but if and only if it is for
essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.
Bypass is prohibited, and the Division may take enforcement action
against a permittee for bypass, unless:
a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, or severe property damage;
b) There were no feasible alternatives to the 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 the permittee
could have installed adequate backup equipment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or preventative maintenance; and
c) The permittee submitted notices as required in "Bypass
Notification", Part II.A.6.
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 and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
bypass shall be subject to Division approval and limitations imposed
by the Division and EPA.
Code: i - 26 Date: 1-84, revised 12-15-86, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 13 of 19
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
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
(iii) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required
in Part II.A.3. of this permit (24-hour notice); and
(iv) The permittee complied with any remedial measures
required under Section 122.7(d) of the federal
regulations.
c) Burden of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to
establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof.
8. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed in the course of
treatment or control of wastewaters shall be properly disposed of in
a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from
entering waters of the State.
Code: i - 27 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 14 of 19
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
9. Minimization of Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any
adverse impact to waters of the State resulting from noncompliance
with any effluent limitations specified in this permit, including
such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine
the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
10. Discharge Point
Any discharge to the waters of the State from a point source other
than specifically authorized by this permit is prohibited.
11. 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 with its permit, control production, or all discharges,
or both until the facility is restored or an alternative method of
treatment is provided. This provision for example, 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 permittee 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.
12. 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 to
achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper
operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate
funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate
laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of
back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when
necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
Code: i - 28 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 15 of 19
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Inspections and Right to Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director of the State Water Quality
Control -Division, the EPA Regional Administrator, and/or their
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 to investigate, within
reason, any actual, suspected, or potential source of water
pollution, or any violation of the Colorado Water Quality
Control Act. The investigation may include, but is not limited
to, the following: sampling of any discharge and/or process
waters, the taking of photographs, interviewing permittee staff
on alleged violations, and 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.
d) The Division shall split any sample taken with the permittee if
requested to do so by the permittee.
2. Duty 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 of Ownership or Control
A permit may be transferred to a new permittee if:
a) The current permittee notifies the Division in writing 30 days
in advance of the proposed transfer date; and
Code: i - 29 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 16 of 19
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control (Continued)
b) The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and
new permittees containing a specific date for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage and liability between them; and
c) The current permittee has met all fee requirements of the State
Discharge Permit System Regulations, Section 6.16.0.
4. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of
the Federal Clean Water Act and Regulations for the State Discharge
Permit System 6.6.4 (2), all reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the
offices of the State Water Quality Control Division and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
5. Modification, Suspension, or Revocation of Permits By the Division
All permit modification, termination or revocation and reissuance
actions shall be subject to the requirements of the State Discharge
Permit System Regulations, Sections 6.6.2, 6.6.3, 6.8.0 and 6.16.0, 5
C.C.R. 1002-2, except for minor modifications. Minor modifications
may only correct typographical errors, require a change in the
frequency of monitoring or -reporting by the permittee, change an
interim date in a schedule of compliance or allow for a change in
ownership or operational control of a facility including addition,
deactivation or relocation of discharge points where the Division
determines that no other change in the permit is necessary.
a) This permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in
part during its term for reasons determined by the Division
including but not limited to, the following:
(i) Violation of any terms 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 of terms or
conditions of the permit;
(iii) Materially' false or inaccurate statements or information in
the application for the permit;
Code: i - 30 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 17 of 19
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
5. Modification, Suspension, or Revocation of Permits By the Division
(Continued)
(iv) Promulgation of toxic effluent standards or prohibitions
(including any schedule of compliance specified in such
effluent standard or prohibition) which are established
under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act, where such a
toxic pollutant is present in the discharge and such
standard or prohibition is more stringent than any
limitation for such pollutant in this permit.
b) This permit may be modified in whole or in part due to a change in
any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent
reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge, such as:
(i) Promulgation of Water Quality Standards applicable to
waters affected by the permitted discharge; or
(ii) Effluent limitations or other requirements applicable
pursuant to the State Act or federal requirements; or
(iii) Control regulations promulgated; or
(iv) Data submitted pursuant to Part I.3 indicates a potential
for violation of adopted Water Quality Standards or stream
classifications.
(v)
Removal of a temporary modification to a stream standard
thereby requiring the application of the stream standard.
c) This permit may be modified in whole or in part to include new
effluent limitations and other appropriate conditions where data
submitted pursuant to Part I.3.3 indicates that such effluent
limitations and conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with
applicable water quality standards and protection of classified
uses.
d) At the request of the permittee, the Division may modify or
terminate this permit if the following conditions are met:
Code: i - 31 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 18 of 19
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
5. Modification, Suspension, or Revocation of Permits By the Division
(Continued)
(i) In the case of termination, the permittee notifies the
Division of its intent to terminate the permit 90 days
prior to the desired date of termination;
(ii) In the case of termination, the permittee has ceased any
and all discharges to state waters and demonstrates to the
Division there is no probability of further uncontrolled
discharge(s) which may affect waters of the State.
(iii) The Environmental Protection Agency has been notified of
the proposed modification or termination and does not
object in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of
notification;
(iv) The Division finds that the permittee has shown reasonable
grounds consistent with the Federal and State statutes and
regulations for such modification, amendment or termination;
(v) Fee requirements of Section 6.16.0 of State Discharge
Permit System Regulations have been met; and
(vi) Requirements of public notice have been met.
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 (0i1 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 permit
shall be a violation of this permit.
Code: 1 - 32 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88
PART II
Page 19 of 19
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
9. Property 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. Severability
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
If the permittee desires to continue to discharge a permit renewal
application shall be submitted at least one hundred 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 I1.8.6.
12. 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 permittee, 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 (2) shall bear the burden of
proving its applicability. This section shall never be interpreted
as preventing full disclosure of effluent data.
13. Fees
The permittee is required to submit payment of an annual fee as set
forth in the 1983 amendments to the Water Quality Control Act.
Section 25-8-502 (1) (b), and State Discharge Permit Regulations SCCA
1002-2, Section 6.16.0 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.
Code: i - 33 Date: 1-84, revised 12-88