# tr

AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE

COLORADO 

### DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM

In 

## compliance with the 

## provisions ofthe Colorado Water 

## Quality Control 

### Act, 

## (25-8-101 et seq., 

### CRS, 1973

as 

### amended), for both 

## discharges to surface and 

## ground waters, and the Federal Water Pollution Control 

### Act,

as 

### amended 

### (33U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the 

### "Act"),for 

## discharges to surface waters 

### only,the

Cotter 

### Corporation
is 

### authorized to 

## discharge from the JD-7 and JD-9 mines wastewater treatment 

### facilities located in the SE 1/4 

### ofSl6,T46N,RI7W; 15 

### miles West 

### ofNaturita, CO 81422 at latitude 380 14’ 39"North and 

## longitude 108045’ 00" West and NW ~ of Section 

### 30,T46N,RI7W,38012’ 47"

### N,

## Longitude 108047’ 16"

### W, 

## respectively; approximately 15 miles West 

### ofNaturita, CO 81422.

to unnamed tributaries of East Paradox Creek and Bull 

### Canyon
in accordance with effluent 

### limitations,

## monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Parts I and II hereof. All 

## discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions ofthis

## permit.

The 

## applicant may demand an 

## adjudicatory hearing within 

## thirty (30) 

## days ofthe date of issuance ofthe final 

## permit determination,per the Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System Regulations, 61.7(1). Should the 

## applicant choose to contest any 

### ofthe effluent 

### limitations,

## monitoring 

## requirements or other conditions 

### contained 

### herein, the 

## applicant must 

## comply with Section 24-4-104 CRS and the Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System Regulations. Failure to contest any 

### such effluent 

### limitation,

## monitoring requirement, or 

### other 

### condition, constitutes consent to the condition 

### by the 

## Applicant.

This 

## permit and the 

### authorization to 

## discharge shall 

## expire at 

## midnight, May 30,2016

Issued and 

### Signed this 

## ih day of

### April, 2011

ORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT



# ~

Janet 

### Kieler, Permits Section 

### Manager Water 

## Quality Control Division

ISSUED AND SIGNED: APRIL 

### 7,2011

EFFECTIVE: JUNE 

### 1,2011PART I 

### Page 2 of26 PennitNo.: C00036251
TABLE 

### OF CONTENTS PART I......................................................................................................................................................................................................3 A. EFFLUENT LIMIT ATIONS AND MONITORING 

### REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................3 1. Effluent Limitations..............................................................................................................................................................3 2. 

### Monitoring Frequency and 

### Sample Type

......................................... ............ ........................................................................3 3. 

### Salinity Parameters...............................................................................................................................................................3 4. 

### Special Conditions................................................................................................................................................................3 B. TERMS AND CONDITIONS................................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Facilities 

### Operation and Maintenance

................ .... ............... ................................................ ...... ........ ...... ...........................7 2. Stonnwater

### Requirements......

........... ... ............................ ................................................ ...................... ...... .... .....................7 C. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

.....................................................................................................................................................7 D. GENERAL 

### MONITORING,SAMPLING AND REPORTING 

### REQUIREMENTS..........................................................9 1. Routine 

### Reporting ofData...................

...................... ........ ................................ ........................ ............ ...............................9 2. 

### Representative Sampling ......................................................................................................................................................9 3. 

### Analytical and 

### Sampling Methods for

### Monitoring.

......... ...... ...... .................... ............ ........................ ...... .... ..... ...... .......... 10 4. Records...............................................................................................................................................................................11 5. Flow 

### Measuring Device......................................................................................................................................................12 6. 

### Signatory and Certification 

### Requirements

.......................................................................................................................... 12 PART II..................................................................................................................................................................................................14 A. NOTIFICATION 

### REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................................................14 1. Notification to Parties.........................................................................................................................................................14 2. 

### Change in 

### Discharge...........................................................................................................................................................14 3. 

### SpecialNotifications

- Definitions .....................................................................................................................................15 4. 

### Noncompliance Notification...............................................................................................................................................15 5. Other Notification 

### Requirements........................................................................................................................................16 6. 

### Bypass Notification ............................................................................................................................................................17 7. 

### Upsets.................................................................................................................................................................................17 8. 

### Discharge Point ..................................................................................................................................................................17 9. 

### Proper 

### Operation and Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................18 10. Minimization ofAdverse 

### Impact........................................................................................................................................18 11. Removed Substances.................................................................................................................................................

......... 18 12. Submission ofIncorrect or 

### Incomplete Infonnation...........................................................................................................18 13. 

### Bypass ................................................................................................................................................................................18 14. 

### Reduction,Loss, or Failure ofTreatment 

### Facility

.................................. ...................... ........ ............ .................................. 19 B. RESPONSIBILITIES..............................................................................................................................................................19 1. 

### Inspections and 

### Right to 

### Entry

...... ............................. .............. ................ ...... .............. ............................................. ......... 19 2. 

### Duty to Provide Infonnation...............................................................................................................................................20 3. Transfer of

### Ownership or Control......................................................................................................................................20 4. 

### Availability of

### Reports .......................................................................................................................................................20 5. 

### Modification, 

### Suspension,Revocation, or Tennination ofPenn its 

### By the Division.......................................................... 21 6. Oil and Hazardous Substance 

### Liability

............................... ...... .... ...................... ...............................................................24 7. State Laws ..........................................................................................................................................................................24 8. PennitViolations................................................................................................................................................................24 9. 

### Property 

### Rights...................................................................................................................................................................24 10. 

### Severability.........................................................................................................................................................................24 11. Renewal

### Application ..........................................................................................................................................................25 12. 

### Confidentiality

................................... .......... ...... ....................... ........ ........ ........ ............ ................................................. .....25 13. Fees ....................................................................................................................................................................................25 14. Duration ofPenn it..............................................................................................................................................................25 15. Section 307 Toxics

.............................................................................................................................................................25 16. Effect ofPenn it Issuance....................................................................................................................................................25PART I 

### Page 3 of26 PermitNo.: C00036251

PART I

A. 

### EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND 

### MONITORING 

## REQUIREMENTS

1. 

### Emuent Limitations 

## Beginning no 

### later than 

### the effective date of

### this

## pennit and 

## lasting through the 

## expiration date,the 

## pennittee is 

### authorized to 

## discharge from 

### outfalls: 

### OOlA,OOlB,

## 002A,002B and 

### 002C.

In 

### accordance with the Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission 

## Regulations for Effluent 

## Limitations, Section 

### 62.4,and the 

### Colorado 

## Discharge Pennit 

## System 

## Regulations, Section 

## 61.8(2),5 C.C.R. 

## 1002-61,the

## pennitted discharge shall not 

### contain effluent 

### parameter concentrations which exceed the 

## following limitations 

## specified below or 

### exceed the 

## specified flow limitation.

2. 

## Monitoring Frequency and 

## Sample Type

In 

### order to 

### obtain an 

### indication ofthe 

## probable 

## compliance or 

## noncompliance with the 

### effluent

limitations 

## specified in Part 

### LA,the

## pennittee shall monitor all effluent 

### parameters at 

### the 

## following 

## frequencies. Such

## monitoring will 

## begin immediately and last 

### for the life 

### ofthe

## pennit unless otherwise noted. The 

### results ofsuch

## monitoring shall be 

## reported on 

### the 

## Discharge Monitoring 

## Report fonn 

## (SeePart 

## LD.) 

## Self-monitoring sampling by the 

## pennittee for 

## compliance with the 

## monitoring requirements specified above 

### shall be 

## perfonned at 

### the 

## following location(s): OOlA,

## OOlB,002A,002B and 

### 002C.

Ifthe 

## pennittee,using an 

## approved 

## analytical method,monitors any 

### parameter more 

## frequently than 

## required by this

## pennit, then the results 

### ofsuch 

## monitoring shall be 

### included in the calculation and 

## reporting ofthe values 

## required in the 

## Discharge Monitoring Report Fonn 

## (DMRs) or 

### other 

### fonns as 

## required by the Division. Such 

### increased 

## frequency shall also be 

### indicated.
Oil and Grease 

## Monitoring: For every 

### outfall with oil and grease 

## monitoring, 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 ofoil and grease. A 

## description ofthe 

### corrective action taken 

### should be 

### included with the DMR.

3. 

## Salinity Parameters

In 

### order to 

### obtain an 

### indication of

### the 

## quantity of

## Salinity,measured as 

### total dissolved 

### solids 

## (TDS), 

## being discharged from the 

### site the 

## pennittee shall 

### monitor the wastewater 

### effluent. 

## Self-monitoring samples taken 

### in 

## compliance with the 

## monitoring requirements specified below shall 

### be taken at 

### those 

### locations listed in Part 

### LA.2.

4. 

## Special Conditions

a. 

## Monitoring to Ensure 

### Numeric Effluent Limits Can Be Met

- 

### Prior to 

### the commencement 

### ofany 

## discharge, the 

### treated effluent must 

### be 

## sampled using grab method for all 

### parameters with aPART I 

### Page 4 of26 PermitNo.: C00036251 

### numeric limitation. All 

### effluent must 

### be contained until 

## analyses have confirmed that all 

### numeric effluent 

### limitations have been met. Ifthe 

### results ofthe initial 

## sampling exceed any numeric 

### effluent 

### limitation,additional treatment 

### shall be 

## completed and additional 

## sampling must be 

### collected,post-treatment, to 

### confirm 

## compliance with the 

### limitations. Additional 

## sampling and treatment 

### shall be 

## repeated,and 

### all water 

### shall be 

### collected and 

### retained,until 

## monitoring results for the treated 

### effluent 

## verify compliance with the 

### numeric effluent limitations identified in 

### the 

## permit. This 

## requirement will not 

### be 

## imposed for TDS 

### where 

### report 

## only is 

## required. b. In 

### order to 

### be able to 

## sample and determine 

## compliance with the 

### limitations at 

### Outfalls 

### 001B, 002B 

### and 

### 002C,the

## permittee shall 

### take the 

## appropriate steps to create 

### collection and 

## holding ponds,with treatment as 

### needed, or route the water to the treatment

## ponds for Outfalls OOlA 

### and 002A.

c. 

### Rainfall/Storm 

## Monitoring

- The 

## permittee must document 

### the 

## following information for Outfalls 

### 001B,002B and 002C 

### for any 

### rainfall/storm 

### event, in the cover 

### letter with the DMRs:
1. The 

### date of

## precipitation event,time of

## sampling,duration 

## (inhours)ofindividual rainfall 

### event,and 

## magnitude (ininches)ofeach rainfall or storm 

### event; d. Snowmelt

## Monitoring

- For 

### snowmelt

## monitoring, the

## permittee must 

## identify the date ofthe 

## sampling event.

Outfall OOlA Eftluent Limitations Maximum 

### Monitorinl:;Reguirements Concentrations Eftluent Parameter 

### 30-Day 7-Day Daily Freguency Samnle Tvoe 

### Averal:;e Averal:;e Maximum Effluent Flow 

### (MGD) 0.2 

### Report Continuous Recorder 

### pH 

### (su) 6.5-9 2

### Days/Month Grab 

### COD,effluent 

### (mg/I) 100 200 2

### Days/Month Grab TSS 

### (mg/I) 20 30 2

### Days/Month Grab Oil and Grease 

### (mg/I) NA 10 2

### Days/Month Visual IDS 

### (mg/I) Report Report 

### Quarterly Grab U,1R 

### (JJglI) 2000 4000 2

### DayslMonth Grab Zn,1R 

### (JJglI) 500 1000 2

### DayslMonth Grab Radium 226+228 

### (pCi/I) 5 

### Report 2

### DayslMonth Grab Radium-226 Dis 

### (pCi/I) 3 10 2

### DayslMonth Grab Radium-226 Tot 

### (pCi/I) Report 30 2

### DayslMonth GrabPART I 

### Page 5 of26 Permit No.: C00036251 

### Outfall 001B Effluent Limitations Maximum 

### Monitorina:;Reguirements Concentrations Effluent Parameter 

### 30-DaI 7-DaI 

### DailI FreguencI Samnle TIne Averaa:;e Average Maximum Rainfall 

### (inches) Report Report 

### Monthly Recorder Effluent Flow 

### (MGD) Report Report Continuous Recorder 

### pH (su) 6.5-9 

### Monthly Grab 

### COD,effluent 

### (mg/l) 100 200 

### Monthly Grab TSS 

### (mg/l) 20 30 

### Monthly Grab Oil and Grease 

### (mg/l) NA 10 

### Monthly Visual

TDS 

### (mg/l) Report Report 

### Quarterly Grab 

### U,TR 

### (Jlg/I) 2000 4000 

### Monthly Grab 

### Zn,TR 

### (Jlg/I) 500 1000 

### Monthly Grab Radium 226+228 

### (pCi/l) 5 

### Report 

### Monthly Grab Radium-226 Dis 

### (pCi/l) 3 10 

### Monthly Grab Radium-226 Tot 

### (pCi/I) 

### Report 30 

### Monthly Grab 

### Monitoring may be 

### waived when the site is 

### inaccessible

## for the entire 

### monitoring

## period. The 

### permittee is 

## responsiblefordocumenting that the conditions at 

### the site 

### did not allow

## for access.

Outfall 002A
Emuent Limitations Maximum 

### Monitorinz:;Reguirements Concentrations Emuent Parameter 

### 30-Day 7-Day 

### Daily Freguency Saml!le Tvoe 

### Averaz:;e Averaz:;e Maximum Effluent Flow 

### (MGD) 0.3 

### Report Continuous Recorder pH 

### (su) 6.5-9 2

### Days/Month Grab COD effluent 

### (rog/l) 100 200 2 

### DayslMonth Grab TSS 

### (rog/1) 20 30 2

### DayslMonth Grab Oil and Grease 

### (rog/l) NA 10 2

### DayslMonth Visual IDS 

### (rog/l) Report Report 

### Quarterly Grab U,

### 1R(~I) 2000 4000 2

### DayslMonth Grab Zn,

### 1R(~I) 500 1000 2

### Days/Month Grab Radium 226+228 

### (pCi/l) 5 

### Report 2

### DayslMonth Grab Radium-226 Dis 

### (pCi/l) 3 10 2

### Days/Month Grab Radium-226 Tot (pCi/l) Report 30 2

### Days/Month GrabPART I 

### Page 6 of26 Permit No.: C00036251

Outfall 002B Effluent Limitations Maximum 

### Monitoring Reguirements Concentrations Effluent Parameter 

### 30-DaI 7-DaI DailI FreguencI Samnle 

### TIne Average Average Maximum Rainfall 

### (inches) Report 

### Report Monthly Recorder Effluent Flow 

### (MGD) Report 

### Report Continuous Recorder 

### pH (su) 6.5-9 

### Monthly Grab 

### COD,effluent 

### (mg/l) 100 200 

### Monthly Grab

TSS 

### (mg/l) 20 30 

### Monthly Grab Oil and Grease 

### (mg/l) NA 10 

### Monthly Visual

TDS 

### (mg/l) Report 

### Report 

### Quarterly Grab 

### U,TR 

### (Ilg/l) 2000 4000 

### Monthly Grab 

### Zn,TR 

### (Ilg/l) 500 1000 

### Monthly Grab Radium 226+228 

### (pCill) 5 

### Report 

### Monthly Grab Radium-226 Dis 

### (pCi/l) 3 10 

### Monthly Grab Radium-226 Tot 

### (pC 

### ill) 

### Report 30 

### Monthly Grab 

## Monitoring may 

### be waived when the site is 

### inaccessible

## for the entire 

### monitoring

## period The 

### permittee is 

## responsiblefor

## documenting that the conditions at the site did not allow

## for access.

Outfall 002C Effluent Limitations Maximum 

### Monitoring Reguirements Concentrations Effluent Parameter 

### 30-DaI 7-DaI 

### DailI FreguencI Samnle TIne Average Average Maximum Rainfall 

### (inches) Report Report 

### Monthly Recorder Effluent Flow 

### (MGD) 

### Report Report Continuous Recorder 

### pH (su) 6.5-9 

### Monthly Grab 

### COD,effluent 

### (mg/l) 100 200 

### Monthly Grab TSS 

### (mg/l) 20 30 

### Monthly Grab Oil and Grease 

### (mg/l) NA 10 

### Monthly Visual

TDS 

### (mg/l) Report Report 

### Quarterly Grab 

### U,TR 

### (Ilg/l) 2000 4000 

### Monthly Grab 

### Zn,TR 

### (Ilg/l) 500 1000 

### Monthly Grab Radium 226+228 

### (pCi/l) 5 

### Report Monthly Grab Radium-226 Dis 

### (pC ill) 3 10 

### Monthly Grab Radium-226 Tot 

### (pC ill) 

### Report 30 

### Monthly Grab 

## Monitoring may be waived when the site is 

### inaccessible

## for the entire 

### monitoring

## period. The 

### permittee is 

## responsiblefor

## documenting that the conditions at the site did not 

### allow

## for access.PART I 

### Page 7 of26 PennitNo.: C00036251

B. 

### TERMS AND 

### CONDITIONS

1. 

### Facilities 

## Operation and 

### Maintenance

The 

## permittee shall at 

### all times

## properly operate and maintain all facilities and 

### systems oftreatment 

### and control 

## (andrelated 

## appurtenances)which are 

### installed or 

### used 

## by the

## permittee as 

### necessary to 

### achieve 

## compliance with the conditions ofthis

## permit. Proper 

## operation and maintenance also 

### includes 

## adequate laboratory controls 

### and 

## appropriate quality assurance 

## procedures. This

## provision requires the 

## operation of

## back-up or 

## auxiliary facilities or 

### similar 

### systems when 

### installed 

## by the 

## permittee only when necessary to 

### achieve 

## compliance with 

### the conditions ofthe

## permit. However, the

## permittee shall 

### operate, at a 

## minimum, one 

## complete set 

### ofeach main line unit treatment 

### process 

### whether or not 

### this process 

### is needed to 

### achieve 

## permit effluent 

## compliance. Any 

## sludge

## produced at 

### the wastewater treatment 

## facility shall be 

## disposed ofin accordance 

### with State and Federal 

## guidelines

and 

## regulations.

2. 

### Stormwater 

## Requirements

Pursuant to 

### 5 

### CCR 

## 1002-61.3(2),active and inactive metal 

## mining facilities are 

## required to 

### obtain 

## permit coverage 

### for

## discharges ofstormwater 

### associated with 

### industrial activities 

### from the facilities to state waters. 

### The stormwater 

## discharge permit applicable to 

### active and 

### inactive metal 

## mining facilities is the CDPS 

### General Permit 

### for Stormwater

## Discharges Associated with 

### Metal 

## Mining Operations and 

### Mine-Waste Remediation. Stormwater

## permitting issues for this 

## facility will be handled 

## separately by the 

### Division’s 

## Groundwater,Land 

## Application, and 

### Industrial General Permit Unit.

c. 

### DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

1. 

### "Continuous"measurement 

### is a measurement 

### obtained 

### from an 

### automatic 

## recording device which 

## continually measures 

## provides measurements.

2. 

## "DailyMaximum limitation" for 

### all 

### parameters except temperature,means 

### the 

### limitation for this 

### parameter shall be 

## applied as an 

### instantaneousmaximum 

## (or,for

## pH or 

## DO,instantaneous

## minimum)

value. The 

### instantaneous value 

### is 

### defined as 

### the 

## analytical result ofany 

### individual 

## sample. DMRs 

### shall 

### include the maximum 

## (and/orminimum)ofall 

### instantaneous values 

### within the calendar month. 

## Any instantaneous value 

## beyond the 

### noted 

## daily maximum 

### limitation for the indicated 

### parameter shall be 

### considered a 

### violation 

### ofthis

## permit.

3. 

### "Dissolved 

## (D) metals 

### fraction" is defined in the Basic Standards and 

## Methodologies for 

### Surface Water 

## 1002-31,as 

### that

## portion of a water 

### and 

## suspended sediment 

## sample which 

## passed 

## through a 

### 0.40 or 

### 0.45 UM 

## (micron) membrane filter. Determinations of "dissolved"

### constituents are 

### made 

## using the 

### filtrate. This may 

### include some 

### very 

### small 

## (colloidal)

## suspended particles which 

## passed

through the membrane 

### filter as 

### well as 

### the amount 

### ofsubstance 

### present in true 

### chemical solution.

4. 

### "Grab"

## sample,is a 

## single "dip and take" 

## sample so as to 

### be 

## representative ofthe 

### parameter 

## being monitored.PART I 

### Page 8 of26 Permit No.: C00036251

5. 

### "In-situ"measurement 

### is defined as a 

## single reading,observation or measurement 

### taken in the field at 

### the 

## point of

## discharge.

6. "Instantaneous"measurement 

### is a 

## single reading,observation, or measurement 

## performed on 

### site 

## using existing monitoring facilities.

7. 

## "Quarterly measurement 

## frequency" means 

## samples may 

### be collected at any 

### time 

## during the calendar 

### quarter if a continual 

## discharge occurs. Ifthe 

## discharge is 

### intermittent,then 

## samples shall be 

### collected 

## during the 

## period that 

## discharge occurs.

. 8. 

### "Recorder"

## requires the continuous 

## operation of a chart 

### and! or 

### totalizer 

## (or

## drinking water rotor meters or pump 

### hour meters where 

## previously approved.)

9. "Seven 

### (7) 

## day average" means,

### with the 

## exception of

### fecal 

### coliform or E. 

### coli bacteria 

## (see

## geometric mean), the arithmetic mean ofall 

## samples collected in a seven 

### (7) consecutive 

## day period. When 

## calculating the 7 

## -day average, a value 

### of zero should be used in

## place ofany 

### value that 

### is less than the 

## reporting limit. Ifall values are less than the 

### PQL, and the 

### PQL is 

### greater than the 

## permit limit "BDL" should be 

## reported. Ifall values are less than the 

### PQL, and the 

### PQL is less than or 

### equal to the 

## permit limit, "<x"should be 

### reported,where "x" is the 

## reporting limit. 

### Otherwise, the calculated average shall be 

## reported. Note that it does not matter if a calculated average is 

### greater or less than the 

### PQL, it must be 

## reported as a value. 

### Such seven 

### (7) 

## day averages 

### shall be calculated for all calendar 

### weeks,which are 

### defined as 

## beginning on 

## Sunday and 

## ending on 

## Saturday. If

### the calendar week 

## overlaps two months 

## (i.e.the 

## Sunday is in one month and the 

## Saturday in the



## followingmonth), the seven 

### (7) 

## day average calculated for that calendar week shall be associated with the month that 

### contains the 

## Saturday. 

## Samples may not 

### be used for more 

### than one 

### (1) 

## reporting period.

10. 

## "Thirty (30) day average" means,

### except for fecal 

### coliform or E. coli bacteria 

## (seegeometric mean), the arithmetic mean ofall 

## samples collected 

## during a 

## thirty (30) consecutive-day 

## period. When 

## calculating the 

## 3D-day average, a 

### value of zero 

### should be 

### used in

## place ofany value that 

### is less than the 

### PQL. Ifall values are less than the 

### PQL, and the 

### PQL is 

### greater than the 

## permit limit "BDL" should be 

## reported. Ifall values are less than the 

### PQL, and the 

### PQL is less than or 

## equal to the 

## permit limit, "<x"should be 

### reported,where "x"is the 

## reporting limit. 

### Otherwise, the calculated average shall be 

## reported. Note that it does not matter if a calculated average is 

### greater or less than the 

### PQL, it must be 

### reported as a value. The 

## permittee shall 

### report the 

## appropriate mean 

### ofall 

## self-monitoring sample data collected 

## during the 

### calendar month on the 

## Discharge 

## Monitoring Reports. 

## Samples shall not 

### be used for more than one 

## (1) 

## reporting period.

11. 

### "TotalMetals" means the concentration 

### ofmetals 

### determined on an 

### unfiltered 

## sample following vigorous digestion (Section4.1.3), or the sum 

### ofthe concentrations ofmetals in both the dissolved 

### and 

## suspended fractions, as 

### described in 

### Manual ofMethods for Chemical 

## Analysis ofWater 

### and 

### Wastes,U.S. Environmental Protection 

### Agency,March 

### 1979,or its 

## equivalent.

12. "Total

### Recoverable Metals" means that

## portion of a water and 

## suspended sediment 

## sample measured 

## by the total 

### recoverable 

## analytical procedure described in Methods for 

### Chemical 

## Analysis ofWater and 

### Wastes, U.S. Environmental Protection 

### Agency,March 1979 or its 

## equivalent.PART I 

### Page 90f26 PermitNo.: C00036251

13. 

### "Twice

## Monthly"monitoring 

## frequency means that two 

## samples shall be 

### collected each calendar month on 

### separate weeks with at least one 

### full week 

### between the two 

## sample dates. 

### Also, there shall be at 

### least one full 

### week between the 

### second 

## sample ofa 

### month and the first 

## sample ofthe 

## following month.

14. 

### "Visual"observation is 

## observing the 

## discharge to 

### check for the presence 

### ofa 

### visible sheen or 

## floating oil.

15. "Water

## Quality Control 

### Division" or 

### "Division"means 

### the state Water 

## Quality Control Division as 

### established in 25-8-101 et 

## al.)
Additional relevant definitions are found in 

### the Colorado Water 

## Quality Control 

### Act, CRS 

## ~~ 25-8- 

### 101 et seg.,

### the Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System 

## Regulations,Regulation 61 

## (5CCR 

## 1002-61)and other 

## applicable regulations.

D. GENERAL 

### MONITORING,SAMPLING AND REPORTING 

### REQUIREMENTS

1. Routine 

### Reporting ofData 

## Reporting ofthe data 

## gathered in 

## compliance with Part LB.1 shall be on a

### monthly basis. 

## Reporting ofall data 

## gathered shall 

## comply with the 

## requirements ofPart LE. 

## (GeneralRequirements). 

## Monitoring results 

### shall be summarized for each 

### calendar month and 

## reported on Division 

## approved discharge monitoring report 

### (DMR) forms 

### (EPAform 

### 3320-1). One 

### form shall be mailed to the Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division, as 

### indicated 

### below, so that 

### the DMR 

### is received no later than the 28th 

## day ofthe 

## following month 

## (forexample,the DMR 

### for the 

### first calendar 

### quarter must 

### be received 

## by the Division 

## by April 28th). Ifno 

## discharge occurs 

## during the 

## reporting period, "No 

## Discharge" shall 

### be 

## reported.

The 

## original 

## signed copy 

### ofeach 

## discharge 

## monitoring report 

## (DMR) shall be 

### submitted to 

### the 

### Division at the 

## following address:
Colorado 

### Department of

### Public Health and 

### Environment Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division 

### WQCD-P-B2 4300 

## Cherry Creek Drive 

### South 

### Denver, Colorado 80246-1530



### The 

## Discharge 

## Monitoring Report forms shall be 

### filled out 

## accurately and 

## completely in 

### accordance with 

## requirements ofthis

## permit and 

### the instructions on the 

### forms. 

## They shall 

### be 

## signed by an 

### authorized person as 

### identified in Part LE.6.

2. 

## Representative Sampling 

## Samples and measurements 

### taken as 

## required herein shall be 

## representative ofthe 

### volume and nature 

### ofthe monitored 

## discharge. All 

## samples shall be taken at 

### the

## monitoring points 

## specified in thisPART I 

### Page 10 of26 Permit No.: C00036251 

## permit and,unless 

### otherwise 

## specified,before the 

### effluent

## joins or 

### is diluted 

## by any 

### other

waste

### stream,

## body of

### water, or 

### substance. 

## Monitoring points shall not 

### be 

## changed without notification to 

### and 

## approval by the Division.

3. 

## Analytical and 

## Sampling Methods for

## Monitoring

The 

## permittee shall 

### install,calibrate, use and 

### maintain 

## monitoring methods and 

## equipment,including biological and 

### indicated 

## pollutant monitoring methods. All 

## sampling shall be 

## performed by the 

## permittee 

## according to 

## specified methods in 40 C.F.R. Part 

### 136;methods 

## approved by EPA 

### pursuant to 40 C.F .R.Part 

### 136; or methods 

## approved by the 

### Division, in the absence 

### ofa method 

## specified in

or 

## approved pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 136.

Ifthe 

## permit contains a numeric effluent 

### limit,the 

### analytical method and 

### PQL selected for a 

### parameter shall be the one that can measure 

### compliance with the numeric effluent limit. Ifall 

### analytical methods and 

### corresponding PQLs are 

### greater than the numeric effluent 

### limit,then

the 

## analytical method with the lowest 

### PQL shall be used.

Ifthe 

## permit contains a 

### monitoring or 

### report 

### only 

## requirement,the 

## analytical method chosen

shall be one that can measure to the 

### potential numeric effluent 

### limit(s) (maximumallowable 

## pollutant concentration as shown in the 

## WQA or fact 

## sheet). Ifall 

## analytical methods and 

## corresponding PQLs are 

### greater than the 

## potential numeric 

### effluent limit 

### (s),then the 

## analytical method with the lowest 

### PQL shall be used.

If the 

### permit contains an interim effluent limitation 

### (alimit is 

### report until such time as a numeric effluent limit becomes 

## effective), the 

### analytical method chosen shall be one that can

measure to the final numeric effluent limit. Ifall 

### analytical methods and 

## corresponding PQLs

are 

### greater than the final numeric effluent limit 

### (s),then the 

### analytical method with the lowest 

### PQL shall be used.

When the 

### analytical method which 

## complies with the above 

## requirements has a 

### PQL greater than the 

## permit limit,the 

## permittee shall 

### report "BDL" on the DMR. Such 

### reports will not be considered as violations of the 

### permit limit, as 

### long as the lowest available 

### PQL is used for the 

### analysis. When the 

### analytical method which 

### complies with the above 

### requirements has a 

### PQL that is 

### equal to or less than the 

## permit limitation, "< X" 

### (whereX = the actual 

### PQL achieved 

### by the 

### laboratory)shall be 

### reported on the DMR. For 

### parameters that have 

### only a 

## monitoring or 

### report 

### only limitation, "< X" 

### (whereX = the actual 

### PQL achieved 

### by the 

### laboratory)shall be 

### reported on the DMR.


### The 

### present lowest 

### PQLs for 

## specific parameters, as 

### determined 

## by the State 

## Laboratory 

## (November 2008)are 

## provided below. lfthe 

## analytical method cannot 

### achieve a 

## PQL that 

### is less than or 

## equal to 

### the

## permit limit,then the 

### method, or a more 

## precise method,must 

### achieve a 

### PQL that is 

### less than or



## equal to the 

### PQL in 

### the table below. A 

## listing ofthe 

### PQLs for 

## organic parameters that must meet the 

### above 

## requirement can be found in the Division’s Practical 

### Quantitation Limitation Guidance 

### Document,

## July 2008.

These limits 

## apply to the total 

### recoverable or 

### the

## potentially dissolved fraction ofmetals.PART I 

### Page 11 of26 PermitNo.: C00036251
In the 

### calculation ofaverage 

### concentrations,those 

## analytical results that are less than the

## practical quantitation limit shall be considered to 

### be zero 

### for calculation purposes. Ifall 

### individual

# analytical results that 

### would be used in the calculations are below the 

## practical quantitation limit,then "less than

x 

### ",where x is 

### the 

## practical 

## quantitation limit, shall be 

## reported on the 

## monthly DMR. 

### Otherwise, report the calculated value.

Parameter Practical Parameter Practical 

### Quantitation Quantitation Limits, Limits,Jl,2Il Aluminum 50 

### J.lg/I Manganese 2

### J.lg/I Ammonia 1 

### mg/l Mercury 0.1 

### J.lg/I Arsenic 1 

### Jlg/I Mercury 

## (low-level) 0.003 

### J.lg/I Barium 5 

## J.lg/I Nickel 50 

### Jlg/I 

### Beryllium 1 

### J.lg/I N-Ammonia 50 

### J.lg/I BOD/CBOD 1 

### mg/l N NitratelNitrite 0.5 

### mg/l Boron 

## 50/lg/1 N-Nitrate 50 

### Jlg/I

Cadmium 1 

### J.lg/I N-Nitrite 10 

## J.lg/I Calcium 20 

### J.lg/I Total 

### Nitrogen 0.5 

### mg/l Chloride 2

## mg/l Phenols 100 

### Jlg/I Chlorine 0.1 

### mg/l Phosphorus 10/lg/1 Total Residual Radium 226 1 

## pCi/1 Chlorine DPD 

### colorimetric 0.10

## mg/l Radium 228 1 

### pCi/1 Amperometric titration 0.05 

## mg/l Selenium 1 

### J.lg/I Chromium 20 

### J.lg/I Silver 0.5 

### J.lg/I Chromium,Hexavalent 20 

### Jlg/I Sodium 0.2

### mg/l Copper 5 

## /lg/l Sulfate 5

### mg/l 

## Cyanide (Direct/ 

## 10/lg/1 Sulfide 0.2

## mg/l 

## Distilled) Cyanide,WAD+A47 5 

## /lg/l Total 

### Dissolved 10

## mg/l Solids Fluoride 

## O.lmg/1 Total 

## Suspended 10

## mg/l Solids Iron 

## 10/lg/1 Thallium 1 

## J.lg/I Lead 1 

## Jlg/I Uranium 1 

### J.lg/I 

## Magnesium 20 

### Jlg/I Zinc 10 

### Jlg/I

4. Records

The 

## permittee shall establish and maintain records. Those records shall include the 

## following:

a. The 

### date,type,exact 

### location,and time 

### of

## sampling or 

### measurements; b. 

### The 

## individual(s)who 

## performed the 

## sampling or 

### measurements;

c. 

### The 

## date(s)the 

## analyses were 

## performed; d. The 

## individual(s)who 

## performed the 

## analyses;PART I 

### Page 12 of26 Pennit No.: C00036251

e. 

### The 

## analytical 

## techniques or 

### methods 

### used; f. The results ofsuch 

## analyses; and
g. 

### Any other 

### observations which may result in an 

## impact on the 

## quality or 

## quantity ofthe 

## discharge

as 

### indicated in 40 CFR 122.44 

## (i)(1)(iii).

The 

## permittee shall retain for a 

### minimum ofthree 

## (3) years records 

### ofall 

## monitoring information, 

## including all 

## original strip chart 

## recordings for continuous

## monitoring instrumentation,all calibration and maintenance 

### records,

## copies ofall 

### reports 

## required by this 

## permit and records ofall data used to



## complete the 

## application for this

## permit. This

## period ofretention shall be extended 

## during the course 

### ofany 

### unresolved 

## litigation regarding the 

## discharge of

## pollutants by the

## permittee or 

### when 

## requested by the 

### Division or EP A.

5. Flow 

## Measuring Device

Ifnot 

## already a 

### part ofthe

## permitted facility,within 

## ninety (90) days after the effective date ofthe 

## permit, a flow

## measuring device shall be installed to 

## give representative values 

### ofeffluent 

## quantities at the 

## respective discharge 

## points. Unless 

## specifically exempted,or 

### modified in Part LE.5 

### ofthis 

## permit, a 

### flow

## measuring device will be 

## applicable at all 

## designated discharge 

## points.

At 

### the 

### request ofthe 

### Division, the

## permittee shall show 

## proof of

### the accuracy ofany 

## flow-measuring device used in 

## obtaining data 

### submitted in the 

## monitoring report. The 

## flow-measuring device must 

### indicate values 

### within ten 

## (10) percent ofthe actual 

### flow 

## being discharged from the 

## facility.

6. 

## Signatory and 

### Certification 

### Requirements

a. 

### All 

### reports and other information 

## required by the 

### Division, shall 

### be 

## signed and certified for accuracy 

## by the

## permittee in 

### accord with the 

## following criteria:


### i) In the case 

### of

## corporations,by a 

## responsible corporate officer. For purposes 

### ofthis 

### section, the 

## responsible corporate officer is 

## responsible for the 

### overall 

## operation ofthe 

## facility from which the 

## discharge described in the 

### form 

## originates;
ii) In 

### the case of a

## partnership,by a 

## general partner; iii) In the case of a sole 

## proprietorship,by the 

## proprietor;
iv) In the case of a

## municipal, state, or other

## public facility,by either a

## principal executive 

### officer,

or 

## ranking elected 

### official. For purposes 

### ofthis 

### section, a

## principal executive 

### officer has 

## responsibility for the 

### overall 

## operation of

### the 

## facility from which the 

## discharge originates;
v) 

### By a 

## duly authorized 

## representative ofa person 

### described 

### above,

## only if: 

### 1) The 

### authorization is made in 

## writing by a person described 

### in 

### i, ii, iii, or iv 

### above; 

## 2) The authorization 

## specifies either an 

### individual or a

## position having responsibility for the overall 

## operation ofthe 

## regulated facility or 

## activity such as the

## position of

## plant manager, 

### operator ofa 

### well or a well 

### field,

## superintendent,position of

## equivalent responsibility, orPART I 

### Page 13 of26 Pennit No.: C00036251

an 

### individual or

## position having overall 

## responsibility for 

### environmental matters 

### for the company. 

### (A

## duly authorized 

## representative may 

### thus be either a 

### named individual or any



### individual 

## occupying a 

### named 

## position); and, 

### 3) The 

### written authorization is 

### submitted to the Division.

b. Ifan 

### authorization as 

### described in 

### this section is no 

## longer accurate because a different individual

or

## position has 

## responsibility for the overall 

## operation ofthe 

## facility, a new authorization 

## satisfying the 

## requirements ofthis section must 

### be submitted to 

### the Division 

## prior to or 

## together with any 

### reports,

### information, or 

## applications to 

### be 

## signed by an 

### authorized 

## representative.

The 

## permittee, or the 

## duly authorized 

## representative shall make and 

## sign the 

## following

certification on 

### all such 

### documents:

"I

## certify under 

## penalty oflaw that this document and all attachments were 

## prepared under my 

### direction or 

## supervision in 

### accordance with a 

### system 

## designed to assure that 

## qualified personnel 

## properly gather and evaluate the information 

### submitted. Based on my 

## inquiry ofthe person or persons 

### who manage 

### the 

### system, or 

### those persons 

## directly responsible for 

## gathering the 

### information,the 

### information submitted is to 

### the best ofmy 

## knowledge and 

### belief, true, accurate 

### and 

## complete. I am aware 

### that there are 

## significantpenalties for 

## submitting false 

### information, 

## including the

## possibility offine and 

## imprisonment for

## knowing violations."PART II 

### Page 14 of26 Pennit No.: C00036251
PART II

A. NOTIFICATION 

### REQUIREMENTS

1. 

### Notification to Parties

All 

### notification 

## requirements under 

### this section shall be 

### directed as 

### follows:

a. 

### Oral

### Notifications,

## during normal business hours shall be to:

Water 

## QualitY Protection 

### Section

- 

### Industrial 

## Compliance Program Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division 

## Telephone: (303) 692-3500

b. Written 

### notification shall be to:

Water 

## Quality Protection Section

- 

### Industrial 

## Compliance Program Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division Colorado 

## Department ofPublic Health and Environment



### WQCD-WQP-B2 4300 

## Cherry Creek Drive South 

### Denver, CO 80246-1530

2. 

## Change in 

### Discharge

The 

## permittee shall 

## notify the 

### Division, in 

## writing, ofany 

## planned physical alterations or 

### additions to 

### the 

### permitted 

## facility. Notice 

### is 

## required only when:

a. The 

### alteration or 

### addition could 

## significantly change the nature or increase the 

## quantity of 

## pollutants 

## discharged, or;

b. The 

### alteration or 

### addition results in a 

## significant change in the

## permittee’s sludge use or 

## disposal practices, and such 

### alteration,

### addition, or 

## change may 

## justify the 

## application of

## permit conditions that are different 

### from or absent in 

### the 

## existing permit,

## including notification of

### additional use or 

## disposal sites not 

## reported pursuant to an 

## approved land 

## application 

## plan.

The 

## permittee shall 

## give advance 

### notice to the 

### Division ofany 

### planned 

## changes in the 

## permitted



## facility or 

## activity which may result in 

## noncompliance with 

## permit 

## requirements.

Whenever 

### notification ofany 

## planned 

## physical alterations or 

### additions to the

## permitted 

## facility is 

## required pursuant to 

### this 

### section,the

## permittee shall furnish the 

### Division such

## plans and 

## specifications which 

### the Division deems 

## reasonably necessary to evaluate the effect on the 

## discharge, the 

### stream, or 

## ground water. Ifthe 

### Division finds that such new or 

### altered 

## discharge 

## might be 

### inconsistent with the conditions ofthe 

## permit, the 

### Division shall 

## require a new or revised 

### permit 

## application and shall 

### follow the 

### procedures 

## specified in 

### Sections 61.5 

## through 61.6,and 

### 61.15 ofthe 

### Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations.PART II 

### Page 15 of26 PermitNo.: C00036251

3. 

## Special Notifications

- 

### Definitions

a. 

### Bypass: The 

### intentional diversion ofwaste streams from any 

## portion ofa 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 ofnatural 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. 

## Upset: An 

## exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and 

### temporary 

## noncompliance with 

## permit effluent limitations because offactors

## beyond the reasonable control ofthe

## permittee. An 

### upset does not 

### include 

## noncompliance to 

### the extent caused 

## by operational error,

## improperly designed treatment 

### facilities,

## inadequate treatment 

### facilities, lack of

## preventative maintenance, or careless or 

## improper operation.

4. 

## Noncompliance Notification

a. 

### If, for any reason,

### the 

### permittee does not 

## comply with or will 

### be unable to 

## comply with any 

## discharge limitations or 

### standards 

## specified in this

## permit, the 

## permittee shall, at a

### minimum, 

## provide the Division and EP A 

### with the 

## following information:


### i) A 

## description ofthe 

## 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 

### ofthe 

## noncomplying discharge.

b. The 

## permittee shall 

### report the 

## following circumstances 

## orally within 

## twenty-four (24) hours 

### from the time the 

## permittee becomes aware 

### ofthe 

### circumstances,and shall mail to 

### the Division a written 

### report 

## containing the information 

## requested in Part ILA.4 

### (a) within five 

### (5) 

### days after 

## becoming aware ofthe 

## following circumstances:


### i) Circumstances 

## leading to any 

## noncompliance which may 

### endanger health or 

### the environment 

## regardless ofthe cause ofthe 

### incident;
ii) Circumstances 

## leading to any 

## unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitations in the 

## permit;
iii) Circumstances 

## leading to any 

### upset which causes an 

### exceedance ofany 

### effluent limitation in 

### the

## permit;
iv) 

## Daily maximum 

### violations for any 

### ofthe

## pollutants limited 

### by Part LA ofthis

## permit and 

## specified as 

## requiring 24-hour 

### notification. This 

### includes any 

### toxic

## pollutant or 

### hazardous

substance or any 

## pollutant 

## specifically identified as the 

### method to control any 

### toxic 

## pollutant

or hazardous 

### substance.PART II 

### Page 16 of26 PennitNo.: C00036251

c. The 

## permittee shall 

### report instances 

### of

## non-compliance which are not 

## required to be 

## reported within 24-hours at the 

### time 

## Discharge Monitoring Reports are 

### submitted. The 

### reports shall contain the information 

### listed in 

## sub-paragraph (a) ofthis section.

5. Other Notification 

## Requirements Reports of

## compliance or 

## noncompliance with, or any progress 

### reports on,

### interim and 

### final 

## requirements contained in any 

## compliance schedule in the 

## permit shall be 

### submitted no 

### later than 

### fourteen 

## (14) 

## days following each 

### scheduled 

### date,unless otherwise 

## provided by the Division.

The 

## permittee shall

## notify the 

### Division, in 

## writing,thirty (30) 

## days in advance ofa

## proposed transfer 

### of

## permit as

## provided in Part II.B.3.

The 

## permittee’s notification ofall 

## anticipated noncompliance does not 

### stay any 

## permit condition.

All 

## existing manufacturing, commercial,

## mining, and silvicultural 

## dischargers must 

## notify the 

### Division as soon as 

## they know or 

### have reason to believe:

a. 

### That any 

## activity has occurred or 

### will occur 

### which would result in the 

## discharge, on a 

### routine or 

## frequentbasis, ofany toxic

## pollutant which is not limited in the 

## permit, ifthat 

## discharge will exceed the 

## highest ofthe 

## following "notification levels":


### i) One 

### hundred 

## micrograms per 

### liter 

### (100

## J..lg/I);

ii) Two hundred 

## micrograms per liter 

## (200

## J..lg/I) for acrolein and 

## acrylonitrile; five hundred 

## micrograms per liter 

### (500

## J..lg/I) for 

## 2.4-dinitrophenol and 

## 2-methyl-4.6-dinitrophenol;and one 

## milligram per liter 

### (1.0

## mg/l) for 

## antimony;
iii) Five 

### (5) times the maximum concentration value 

## reported for that

## pollutant in the

## permit 

## application in accordance with Section 

## 61.4(2)(g).
iv) The level established 

### by the 

### Division in 

### accordance with 40 C.F.R. 

## ~ 122.44(f).

b. That any 

## activity has occurred or will occur 

### which would result in any 

## discharge, on a 

### non-routine

or 

## infrequent basis, ofa toxic 

## pollutant which is not 

### limited in the

## permit, ifthat 

## discharge will exceed the 

## highest ofthe 

## following "notification levels":


### i) Five 

### hundred 

## micrograms per liter 

## (500

## J..lg/I);
ii) One 

## milligram per 

### liter 

### (1

## mg/l) for 

## antimony; and
iii) Ten 

### (10) times the maximum concentration value 

## reported for that 

## pollutant in the 

## permit 

## application.
iv) The level established 

### by the 

### Division in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 

### ~ 

## 122.44(f).PART II 

### Page 17 of26 Permit No.: C00036251

6. 

### Bypass Notification

Ifthe

## permittee knows in 

### advance ofthe 

### need for a

## bypass, a 

### notice shall 

### be 

### submitted,at 

### least ten 

## days before the date of

### the 

## bypass, to the Division. The 

## bypass shall be 

## subject to 

### Division 

## approval and limitations 

## imposed by the Division. Violations of

## requirements imposed by the Division will 

### constitute a 

### violation ofthis

## permit.

7. 

## Upsets

a. 

### Effect ofan 

## Upset

An 

### upset constitutes an 

### affirmative defense to an 

### action 

## brought for

## noncompliance with 

## permit effluent limitations if

### the 

## requirements of

## paragraph (b) ofthis section are met. No 

### determination made 

## during administrative review ofclaims 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)ofthe 

### upset; and


### ii) The 

## permitted facility was at 

### the time 

## being properly operated and 

### maintained; and


### iii) The 

## permittee submitted proper notice ofthe 

### upset as 

## required in Part ILA.4. ofthis

## permit (24-hour

## notice); and


### iv) The 

## permittee complied with any 

### remedial measure necessary to 

### minimize or 

### prevent any 

## discharge or 

## sludge use or 

## disposal in 

### violation ofthis

## permit which has a reason 

### able likelihood of

## adversely 

## affecting human health or the 

### environment.

In 

### addition to 

### the demonstration 

## required above, a

## permittee who wishes to 

### establish the affirmative defense of

### upset for a 

### violation ofeffluent limitations based upon water 

## quality standards shall also demonstrate 

## through monitoring,modeling or 

### other methods that the relevant standards were achieved in the 

## receiving water.

c. Burden ofProof

In any 

### enforcement

## proceeding, the

## permittee seeking to 

### establish the occurrence 

### ofan 

### upset has the burden of

## proof.

8. 

### Discharge Point 

### Any 

## discharge to the waters 

### ofthe State from a

## point source other 

### than 

## specifically authorized 

## by this 

## permit is 

## prohibited.PART II 

### Page 18 of26 Pennit No.: C00036251

9. 

### Proper 

## Operation and Maintenance


### The 

## permittee shall at all 

### times

## properly operate and maintain all 

### facilities and 

### systems oftreatment 

### and control 

## (andrelated 

## appurtenances)which are 

### installed or 

### used 

## by the 

## permittee as necessary to 

### achieve 

## compliance with the 

### conditions ofthis

## permit. Proper 

## operation and 

### maintenance includes



### effective 

## performance and 

## adequate laboratory and process 

### controls,

## including appropriate quality

assurance 

## procedures (40CFR 

### 122.41(e)). This 

## provision requires the 

### operation of

## back-up or 

## auxiliary facilities or 

### similar 

### systems which are 

### installed 

## by the

## permittee only when necessary to 

### achieve 

## compliance with the conditions 

### ofthe

## permit.

10. Minimization ofAdverse 

### Impact
The 

## permittee shall take all reasonable 

### steps to minimize or 

### prevent any 

## discharge of

## sludge use or 

## disposal in violation of

### this 

## permit which has a reasonable 

### likelihood of

## adversely affecting human 

### health or the 

### environment. As necessary,

### accelerated or additional 

## monitoring to 

### determine the nature and 

## impact ofthe 

## noncomplying discharge is 

## required.

11. Removed Substances 

### Solids,

## sludges, or other 

## pollutants removed in the course oftreatment or control 

### ofwastewaters 

### shall be 

## disposed in 

### accordance with 

## applicable state 

### and federal 

## regulations.

For 

### all domestic wastewater treatment 

### works, at 

### industrial 

### facilities,the

## permittee shall 

## dispose of 

## sludge in accordance with all State 

### and Federal 

## regulations.

12. 

### 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 

### information which was not submitted or any 

### additional information needed to correct any
erroneous 

### information

## previously submitted.

13. 

### Bypass

a. 

### Bypasses are 

## prohibited and the Division may take enforcement action 

## against the 

## permittee for 

## bypass,unless:


### i) The 

## bypass is 

### unavoidable to 

### prevent loss 

### oflife,

## personal injury, or severe 

### property 

## damage;
ii) There were no 

### feasible alternatives to 

## bypass such as the use 

### of

## auxiliary treatment 

### facilities, retention of

### untreated wastes, or maintenance 

## during normal

## periods of

## equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if

## adequate 

## back-up equipment should have been installed in the 

### exercise ofreasonable 

## engineering judgment to 

### prevent a

## bypass which occurred 

## during normal

## periods of

## equipment downtime or 

## preventive maintenance; and


### iii) 

### Proper notices were submitted in 

## compliance with Part II.A.4.PART II 

### Page 19 of26 Pennit No.: C00036251
b. "Severe

### property 

## damage" as used 

### in this Subsection means 

### substantial

## physical damage to the treatment 

### facilities which causes them to become 

## inoperable, or 

### substantial and 

### permanent loss 

### of natural resources which can 

## reasonably be 

## expected to occur in the absence ofa

## bypass. Severe 

### property 

## damage does not mean 

### economic loss caused 

## by delays in

## production.

c. The 

## permittee may allow a

## bypass to occur 

### which does not cause 

### effluent limitations to be 

### exceeded,but 

## only ifit 

### also is for 

### essential 

### maintenance or to assure 

## optimal operation. These 

## bypasses are not 

## subject to the 

## provisions of

## paragraph (a) above.

d. 

### The Division may approve an 

## anticipated bypass,after 

## considering adverse 

### effects, ifthe Division determines that the 

## bypass will meet the conditions 

## specified in

## paragraph (a) above.

14. 

### Reduction,Loss, or Failure ofTreatment 

### Facility
The 

## permittee has the 

## duty to 

### halt or 

### reduce any 

## activity ifnecessary to 

### maintain 

## compliance with the

effluent limitations ofthe 

## permit. Upon reduction, loss, or 

### failure ofthe treatment 

## facility,the 

## permittee shall, to 

### the extent necessary to 

### maintain 

## compliance with its 

## permit, control 

## production, control sources 

### of

### wastewater, or all 

## discharges,until the 

## facility is restored or an 

### alternative method

oftreatment 

### is

## provided. This

## provision also 

## applies to power 

### failures,unless an 

### alternative power
source 

### sufficient to 

### operate the wastewater 

### control facilities is

## provided.

It shall not be a defense for a

## 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 ofthis

## permit.

B. RESPONSIBILITIES

1. 

## Inspections and 

## Right to 

### Entry
The 

## permittee shall allow the Division and/or the 

### authorized 

## representative,upon 

### the 

## presentation of

credentials:

a. To enter upon 

### the

## permittee’s premises where a 

## regulated facility or 

## activity is located or in 

### which any 

### records are 

## required to be 

## kept under the terms 

### and conditions ofthis

## permit;

b. At 

### reasonable times to 

### have access to and copy any 

### records 

## required to 

### be 

## kept under the terms and conditions ofthis

## permit and to 

## inspect any 

## monitoring equipment or

## monitoring method 

## required in 

### the 

## permit; and

c. To enter upon 

### the

## permittee’s premises in a 

### reasonable manner 

### and at a 

### reasonable time to 

## inspect and/or 

## investigate,any 

### actual, 

## suspected, or

## potential source 

### ofwater 

## pollution, or to 

### ascertain 

## compliance or non 

## compliance with the Colorado Water 

## Quality Control Act or any other 

## applicable state or federal statute or 

## regulation or any 

### order 

## promulgated by the Division. The 

## investigation may 

### include,but 

### is not 

### limited 

### to,the 

## following: sampling ofany 

## discharge and/or process 

### waters, the 

## taking of

## photographs, 

## interviewing ofany person 

## having knowledge related to the 

## discharge 

## permit or 

## alleged violation, access to any and all 

### facilities or areas 

### within the 

## permittee’s premises that may have any effect on the 

## discharge,permit, or 

## alleged violation. SuchPART II 

### Page 20 of26 PermitNo.: C00036251 

### entry is also authorized 

### for the purpose 

### of

## inspecting and 

## copying records 

## required to be 

## kept

concerning any 

### effluent source.

d. The 

## permittee shall 

## provide access to 

### the Division to 

## sample the 

## discharge at a

## point after the final treatment process but 

## prior to the 

## discharge mixing with state waters upon 

## presentation ofproper



### credentials.

In 

### the

## making of such 

## inspections,investigations,and 

### determinations,the 

### Division, insofar as 

## practicable,may 

## designate as 

### its authorized 

## representatives any 

## qualified personnel ofthe 

## Department of

## Agriculture. The 

### Division may 

### also 

### request assistance from any 

### other state or 

### local agency or 

### institution.

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 ofrecords 

## required to be 

## kept by this

## permit.

3. Transfer of

### Ownership or Control

a. 

### Except as

## provided in 

## paragraph b. 

### ofthis 

### section, a

## permit may be 

### transferred 

## by a

## permittee only ifthe 

## permit has been 

### modified or 

### revoked and reissued as

## provided in 

### Section 

### 61.8(8)ofthe Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System 

## Regulations, to 

## identify the new 

## permittee and to 

## incorporate such other 

## requirements as may be necessary under the 

### Federal Act.

b. 

### A 

## permit may 

### be 

## automatically transferred to a new 

## permittee if:


### i) The current

## permittee notifies the 

### Division in 

## writing 30

## days in advance ofthe

## proposed transfer 

### date; and


### ii) The 

### notice includes a 

### written 

### agreement between the 

## existing and new 

## permittee(s)containing

a 

## specific date 

### for transfer of

## permit responsibility, coverage 

### and 

## liability between 

### them;and
iii) The 

### Division does not 

## notify the 

## existing permittee and the 

## proposed new 

## permittee ofits intent to 

## modify, or revoke 

### and reissue the 

## permit.
iv) Fee 

## requirements ofthe Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations, Section 

### 61.15,have 

### been met.

4. 

## Availability of

### Reports 

## Except for data 

### determined to be 

### confidential under Section 308 

### ofthe Federal Clean Water Act 

### and the Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System 

## Regulations 5 

### CCR 

### 1002-61,Section 

## 61.5(4),all 

### reports 

## prepared in accordance with the terms ofthis

## permit shall be available for

## public inspection at the 

### offices ofthe 

### Division and the Environmental 

### Protection 

### Agency.PART II 

### Page 21 of26 PermitNo.: C00036251 

### The name 

### and address ofthe

## permit applicant(s)and 

## permittee(s),permit applications,permits and



### effluent data shall not be considered confidential. 

## Knowingly making false statement on any 

### such 

### report 

## may-result in the 

## imposition ofcriminal

## penalties as

## provided for in Section 309 

### ofthe Federal Clean Water 

### Act, and 

### Section 25-8-610 C.R.S.

5. 

### Modification. 

## Suspension.Revocation. or Termination ofPermits 

## By the Division

The 

## filing of a 

### request 

## by the

## permittee for a

## permit modification,revocation and 

### reissuance, termination or a 

### notification of

## planned changes or 

## anticipated noncompliance,does not 

### stay any 

## permit condition.

a. A 

## permit may be 

### modified, 

## suspended, or terminated in whole or in

### part 

## during its term 

### for

reasons 

### determined 

## by the Division 

## including,but not 

### limited 

### to,the 

## following:
i) Violation ofany terms or conditions ofthe 

## permit;
ii) 

## Obtaining a

## permit by 

## misrepresentation or 

## failing to 

### disclose any 

### fact which is material to 

### the 

## granting or 

### denial ofa

## permit or to 

### the establishment ofterms or 

### conditions ofthe

## permit; or 

### iii) 

## Materially false or 

### inaccurate statements or 

### information in the

## permit application or 

### the 

## permit.
iv) A 

### determination that the

## permitted activity endangers human health or 

### the classified or 

## existing uses 

### of state waters 

### and can 

## only be 

## regulated to 

## acceptable levels

## by permit modifications or termination.

b. A 

## permit may 

### be modified in whole or 

### in 

### part for the 

## following causes,

## provided that such modification 

## complies with the 

## provisions ofSection 61.10 

### ofthe 

### Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System Regulations:
i) There are 

### material and substantial 

### alterations or 

### additions to the 

## permitted facility or 

## activity which occurred after 

## permit issuance which 

## justify the 

## application of

## permit conditions that

are 

### different or absent 

### in the 

## existing permit.
ii) The 

### Division has received new 

### information which was not 

### available at 

### the time of

## permit issuance 

## (otherthan 

### revised 

## regulations,guidance, or test 

## methods)and which would have 

## justified the 

## application ofdifferent 

## permit conditions at 

### the time ofissuance. For 

## permits issued to new sources or new 

## dischargers, this cause 

### includes information derived from effluent 

## testing required under Section 

## 61.4(7)( e)ofthe 

### Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations. This 

## provision allows a modification ofthe 

## permit to include 

### conditions that are less 

## stringent than the 

## existing 

## permit only to the extent allowed under Section 61.10 

### ofthe 

### Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations.
iii) The standards or 

## regulations on which the 

## permit was based have been 

## changed by promulgation ofamended standards or 

## regulations or 

## by judicial decision after the 

## permit was issued. Permits may be 

### modified 

## during their terms 

### for this cause 

## only as 

### follows:PART II 

### Page 22 of26 PennitNo.: C00036251 

### (A) The 

## pennit condition 

## requested to 

### be modified was 

### based on a

## promulgated effluent limitation 

## guideline, EP A 

## approved water 

## quality standard, or an 

### effluent limitation set forth in 5 CCR 

### 1002-62,

### S 62et seq.; and


### (B)EP A 

### has 

### revised,withdrawn, or 

### modified that

## portion ofthe 

### regulation or 

### effluent limitation 

## guideline on 

### which the

## pennit condition was 

### based, or 

### has 

## approved a 

### Commission action with 

### respect to the water 

## quality standard or effluent 

### limitation on 

### which the 

## pennit condition was 

### based; and


### (C)The 

## pennittee requests modification after the 

### notice offinal action 

## by which the EP A 

### effluent limitation 

## guideline,water 

## quality standard, or 

### effluent limitation is 

### revised, withdrawn, or 

### modified; or


### (D) For

## judicial decisions, a court of

### competent

## jurisdiction has remanded and 

## stayed EPA 

## promulgated 

## regulations or effluent 

### limitation 

## guidelines, if

### the remand and 

### stay concern that

## portion ofthe 

## regulations or 

## guidelines on 

### which the 

## pennit condition was based 

### and a 

### request is filed 

## by the 

## pennittee in accordance 

### with this 

## Regulation,within 

## ninety (90)



## days of

## judicial remand.


### iv) The Division 

### detennines that 

## good cause exists to 

## modify a

## pennit condition because of events over which the 

## pennittee has no control 

### and for which there is no reasonable 

### available 

## remedy.
v) The 

## pennittee has 

### received a 

### variance.


### vi) When 

## required to 

## incorporate 

## applicable toxic effluent limitation or 

### standards 

## adopted pursuant to 

### S 307(a)ofthe 

### Federal act. 

### vii) When 

## required by the reopener 

### conditions in 

### the

## pennit.
viii)As necessary under 40 C.F.R. 

### 403.8(e),to 

### include a 

## compliance schedule for the 

## development ofa

### pretreatment program. 

### ix) When the level 

### of

## discharge ofany 

## pollutant which is not 

### limited in 

### the 

## pennit exceeds the level 

### which can 

### be achieved 

## by the 

## technology-based treatment 

## requirements 

## appropriate to the

## pennittee under Section 

## 61.8(2)ofthe 

### Colorado 

## Discharge Pennit 

### System 

## Regulations.
x) To 

### establish a

## pollutant notification 

### level 

## required in Section 

### 61.8(5)of

### the Colorado 

## Discharge Pennit 

### System 

## Regulations.
xi) To correct technical 

### mistakes, such as errors in 

### calculation, or 

### mistaken 

## interpretations oflaw made in 

## detennining pennit conditions, to the extent allowed in Section 61.10 

### ofthe Colorado State 

## Discharge Pennit 

### System 

## Regulations.
xii) When 

## required by a

## pennit condition to 

## incorporate a land 

## application plan for beneficial

reuse of sewage 

## sludge,to 

### revise an 

## existing land 

## application plan, or to add a 

### land 

## application plan.PART II 

### Page 23 of26 Permit No.: C00036251



### xiii) For any other cause 

## provided in 

### Section 61.10 ofthe Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations.

c. At 

### the 

### request ofa

## permittee, the Division may 

## modify or 

### terminate a

## permit and 

### issue a new 

## permit ifthe 

## following conditions are met:


### i) The 

## Regional Administrator has been 

### notified of

### the 

## proposed modification or 

### termination and does not 

## object in 

## writing within 

## thirty (30) 

## days of

## receipt of

### notification,
ii) The 

### Division finds that 

### the

## permittee has 

### shown reasonable 

## grounds consistent with the Federal and State statutes 

### and 

## regulations for such modifications or 

### termination;
iii) 

## Requirements of Section 61.15 

### ofthe Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations have been 

### met, and


### iv) 

## Requirements of

## public notice have been met.

d. Permit

### modification 

### (exceptfor minor 

## modifications), termination or revocation and reissuance 

### actions shall be 

## subject to the 

## requirements ofSections 

## 61.5(2),61.5(3),61.6, 61.7 and 61.15 

### of the Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System Regulations. The 

### Division shall act on a

## permit modification 

### request,other than 

### minor modification 

### requests,within 180

## days of

## receipt thereof. 

## Except for minor 

### modifications, the terms 

### ofthe 

## existing 

## permit govern 

### and are 

### enforceable until the 

## newly issued 

## permit is 

## formally modified or 

### revoked and 

### reissued 

## following

## public notice.

e. 

## Upon consent

## by the

## permittee, the Division may 

### make minor 

## permit modifications without 

## following the 

## requirements ofSections 

## 61.5(2),61.5(3),61.7,and 61.15 

### ofthe Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations. Minor 

### modifications to

## permits are limited to:


### i) 

## Correcting typographical errors; or 

### ii) 

## Increasing the 

## frequency of

## monitoring or 

## reporting by the 

## permittee; or 

### iii) 

## Changing an interim date in a schedule of

## compliance,provided the new date of

## compliance is not more 

### than 120

## days after the date 

## specific in the 

## existing permit and 

### does not interfere with attainment 

### ofthe final 

## compliance date 

## requirement; or 

### iv) 

## Allowing for a transfer in 

## ownership or 

## operational control 

### ofa 

## facility where the 

### Division determines that no other 

## change in the 

## permit is necessary,

## provided that a written 

### agreement 

## containing a 

## specific date for transfer of

## permit 

## responsibility, coverage and 

## liability between the current and new 

## permittees has been submitted to the 

### Division; or 

### v) 

## Changing the construction schedule for a 

## discharger which is a new source,

### but no 

### such 

## change shall affect a 

## discharger’s obligation to have 

### all 

## pollution control 

## equipment installed and in 

## operationprior to 

## discharge; orPART II 

### Page 24 of26 Pennit No.: C00036251 

### vi) 

## Deleting a

## point source 

### outfall when the 

## discharge from that 

### outfall is terminated and does not result in 

## discharge of

## pollutants from other outfalls 

### except in 

### accordance with 

## permit limits.

f. When a

## permit is

### modified,

## only the conditions 

## subject to modification are 

## reopened. Ifa

## permit is revoked and 

### reissued,the entire 

## permit is 

## reopened and 

## subject to 

### revision and 

### the 

## permit is reissued for a new term.

g. The 

## filing ofa 

### request 

## by the 

## permittee for a

## permit modification,revocation and reissuance or 

### termination does not 

### stay any 

## permit condition.

h. All 

## permit modifications and reissuances are 

## subject to the 

## antibacksliding provisions set 

### forth in 

### 61.1O(e)

## through (g).

6. Oil and Hazardous Substance 

### Liability 

## Nothing in this

## permit shall be construed to 

## preclude the 

### institution ofany 

## 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 

## (Oiland Hazardous 

### Substance 

## Liability) ofthe Clean Water Act.

7. State Laws 

## Nothing in 

### this

## permit shall be construed to 

## preclude the institution ofany 

## 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 ofthe Clean Water Act. 

## Nothing in 

### this

## permit shall be construed to 

### prevent or 

### limit 

## application ofany emergency power of

### the division.

8. PermitViolations


### Failure to 

## comply with any terms 

### and/or conditions ofthis

## permit shall be a 

### violation ofthis 

## permit. The 

## discharge ofany 

## pollutant identified in this

## permit more 

## frequently than or at a level in excess 

### of that authorized shall constitute a violation of

### the 

## permit. Except as

## provided in Part LD and Part ILA

or 

### B,

## nothing in this

## permit shall be construed to relieve the

## permittee from 

### civil or 

### criminal

## penalties for

## noncompliance (40CFR 

### 122.41(a)(I)).

9. 

### Property Rights
The issuance ofthis

## 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 ofthis

## permit are severable. Ifany 

## provisions ofthis

### permit, or the 

## application ofany 

## provision ofthis

## permit to any 

### circumstance, is held 

### invalid,the 

## application ofsuch 

## provision to other circumstances and the 

## application ofthe 

### remainder ofthis

## permit shall not be affected.PART II 

### Page 25 of26 Permit No.: C00036251

11. Renewal

### Application

Ifthe 

## pennittee desires to 

### continue to 

## discharge, a

## pennit renewal 

## application shall be 

### submitted at least one 

### hundred 

## eighty (180) 

## days before this

## pennit expires. Ifthe 

## pennittee anticipates there will be no 

## discharge after the 

## expiration date 

### ofthis

## pennit, the Division should be 

## promptly notified so 

### that it can 

### tenninate the 

## pennit in 

### accordance with Part 11.B.5.

12. 

## Confidentiality Any infonnation 

## relating to any secret process,

### method ofmanufacture or

## production, or 

### sales or 

## marketing data which has 

### been declared 

### confidential 

## by the

## pennittee, 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 ofthis 

### Subsection 

### (12) shall bear the burden 

### of

## proving its 

## applicability. This 

### section shall never 

### be 

## interpreted as 

## preventing full disclosure ofeffluent data.

13. Fees
The 

## pennittee is 

## required to submit

### payment ofan 

### annual fee as set 

### forth in the 2005 amendments to the Water 

## Quality Control Act. 

### Section 25-8-502 

## (1)(b), and the Colorado 

## Discharge Pennit 

## System 

## Regulations 5 CCR 

### 1002-61,Section 61.15 as 

### amended. Failure to submit the 

## required fee when due 

### and 

## payable is a 

### violation of

### the

## pennit and will result in 

### enforcement action 

### pursuant to 

### Section 25-8-601 et. seq., C.R.S. 

### 1973 as 

### amended.

14. Duration ofPermit



### The duration 

### ofa

## pennit shall be for a 

### fixed tenn 

### and shall not 

### exceed five 

## (5) years. 

## Filing of a 

## timely and 

## complete application shall cause 

### the 

## expired pennit to 

### continue in force to the 

### effective date 

### ofthe new 

## pennit. The 

## pennit’s duration may 

### be extended 

## only 

## through administrative extensions and not 

## through interim modifications.

15. Section 307 Toxics

If a toxic 

### effluent standard or 

## prohibition, 

## including any 

## applicable schedule of

## compliance 

## specified, is 

### established 

## by regulation pursuant to 

### Section 307 

### ofthe Federal Act for a toxic 

## pollutant which is 

### present in 

### the

## pennittee’s discharge and such 

### standard or

## prohibition is more 

## stringent than any 

### limitation upon 

### such 

## pollutant in 

### the 

## discharge 

## pennit, the Division shall institute 

## proceedings to 

## modify or revoke 

### and reissue the 

## pennit to confonn to the 

### toxic effluent standard or 

## prohibition.

16. Effect ofPermit Issuance

a. 

### The issuance 

### ofa

## pennit does not convey any 

### property 

## rights or any 

### exclusive 

## privilege.PART II 

### Page 26 of26 PermitNo.: C00036251
b. 

### The issuance ofa

## permit does not 

### authorize any 

## injury to person or 

### property or any 

### invasion of 

## personal rights, nor 

### does it authorize the 

## infringement of

### federal,state, or local laws or 

## regulations.

c. 

## Except for any 

### toxic effluent standard or

## prohibition imposed under Section 307 

### ofthe Federal act

or any 

### standard 

### for sewage 

## sludge use or 

## disposal under Section 

## 405(d)ofthe Federal 

### act, 

## compliance with a

## permit during its term 

### constitutes 

## compliance,for purposes 

### of

### enforcement, with Sections 

### 301,302,306,318,403,and 

## 405(a)and 

## (b) ofthe 

### Federal act. 

### However, a

## permit may 

### be 

### modified,revoked and 

### reissued, or terminated 

## during its term for cause as set forth in 

### Section 

### 61.8(8)ofthe Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System 

## Regulations.

d. 

## Compliance with a

## permit condition which 

## implements a

## particular standard for sewage 

## sludge

use or 

## disposal shall 

### be an 

### affirmative defense in any 

### enforcement action 

## brought for a 

### violation ofthat standard for sewage 

## sludge use or 

## disposal.COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM 

### (CDPS)

, FACT SHEET TO PERMIT NUMBER C00036251

COTTER 

### CORPORATION, JD-7 AND JD-9 MONTROSE COUNTY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TYPE OF PERMIT 

### I
II. FACILITY INFORM ATION 1
III. RECEIVING STREAM 3
IV. FACILITY DESCRIPTION 3
V. PERFORMANCE HISTORY 4
VI. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT 6
VII. REFERENCES 15
VIII. PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS 16

I. TYPE OF PERMIT 

### Minor 

### Industrial,Fifth 

### Renewal, Surface Water 

## Discharge

II. FACILITY INFORMATION

A. 

### Facility Type: Fee 

### Category: Category Flow 

### Range: Annual Fee: 

### Hardrock 

## Mining Category 03,

## Subcategory 2 

### Mine 

## dewatering from 

### 50,000 up to 

### 999,999 

## gpd $ 2150 

## (effectiveJuly 1,2007)

B. SIC Code: 1094 

### (Metal

## Mining:Uranium,Radium,Vanadium 

### Ores)

C. 

### Legal ContactlPermittee: 

### Amory 

## Quinn,President, Cotter 

## Corporation I 7800 East Dorado 

### Place, Suite 

### 210,

## Englewood,

## cd 80111 

### 720-554-6200,

## amory.quinn@ga.com Facility Contact: Glen 

### Williams,

### Manager of

## Mining, Cotter 

## Corporation 7800 East 

### Dorado 

### Place, Suite 

### 210,

## Englewood,CO 80111 

### 970-864-7347,

## glen.williams@cotterusa.com Facility Location: JD-7 Mine: 15 miles West 

### ofNaturita, CO 

### 81422,Latitude 380 14’ 39"

### N, 

## Longitude 1080 45’ 00"W JD-9 Mine:

## Approximately 15 miles west 

### ofNaturita, CO 

### 81422,Latitude 380 12’ 47"

### N,

## Longitude 108047’ 16"W
Certified 

### Operator: Glen 

### Williams, B

ISSUED: APRIL 

### 7,2011 EFFECTIVE: JUNE 

### 1,2011 EXPIRATION: MAY 

### 30,2016COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 2, PermitNo. C0003625I .

JD-7 Mine

-Outfall OOlA: 

### The 

## discharge point 

## for!this mine is in 

### the SE ’l4 near the center 

### of Section 

### 16,

### T46N,R17W, New 

### Mexico 

### P.M., on 

### the northern 

### hillside of

### Monogram Mesa, at latitude 

### 380 14’ 21.8"

### N, 

## longitude 1080 45’02.9" W. 

### The wastewater 

## discharges to an 

### unnamed 

## tributary which flows in a 

## northerly direction to East 

### Paradox 

### Creek,then



## approximately 8

### miles to 

### the Dolores 

### River. The total 

### distance from the 

### outfall to 

### the Dolores River is 

## approximately 12.5 

### miles. JD-7 Mine

-

### Outfall OOlB: JD-7 overburden and waste 

### storage areas 

## (minewaste 

## dumps),

## discharge point at latitude 

### 38014’ 24.8"

### N,

## longitude 108045’ 00.1"W. JD-9 Mine

-

### Outfall 002A:The 

## discharge point forthis mine is in 

### the NW ’l4 near the center 

### ofSection 

### 30,T46N,R17W, New Mexico 

### P.M., on the 

### top of

### Monogram Mesa, 

### (N38012’ 46.4"W 

### 108047’ 

### 13.7"). The wastewater from 

### outfall 002A 

## discharges to an 

## unn~ed tributary to Fawn 

## Springs,which goes to Bull 

### Canyon then to the 

### Dolores River. The total distance from the 

## discharge point to the Dolores 

### River is 

## approximately 10.5 miles. JD-9 Mine

-Outfall 002B:JD-9 

### overburden and waste 

### storage areas 

## (minewaste 

### dumps),

## discharge point (N380 12’ 24.6" W 

### 108047’ 

### 20.8"), located 

## just below the mine waste 

## dump. JD-9 

### Mine

-

### Outfall 002C:JD-9 overburden and waste 

### storage areas 

## (minewaste 

## dumps),

## discharge point (N38012’ 26. " W 

### 108047’ 

### 21.7"), located 

## just below the mine waste 

## dump.

Note 

### that the

## permittee may 

### decide,

## during the course 

### ofthis 

## permit, to route the

# wasiewater from the mine 

## dumps (OOlB, 002B and 

### 002C) to the main treatment 

## facility outfalls 

### (OOlAand 

## 002A). If

### this is 

### done,the 

## permit may 

### be modified to 

### eliminate these 

### outfalls. D. 

### Discharge Point:



## According to the 

### rationale to the

## previous permit "the

## discharge from the outfalls do not reach the 

## receiving

waters ofEast Paradox Creek or Bull 

### Canyon,tributaries to the Dolores 

### River,except 

## during major storm events." It 

### is not 

## expected that the 

## discharge from any 

### ofthe 

### outfalls would reach 

### the Dolores River.

E. 

### Facility Flows: JD-7 Mine

-Outfall OOlA: O.2MGD JD-7 Mine

-Outfall 001B:Flow from Waste 

### Dump JD-9 Mine

-Outfall 002A: 0.3MGD JD-9 Mine

-Outfall 002B:Flow from Waste 

### Dump JD-9 Mine

-Outfall 002C:Flow from Waste 

### Dump

F. 

### Major 

## Changes From Last Renewal:


### Inclusion ofa

## provision that 

## requires the 

## permittee to 

### contain the 

### initial effluent 

### until 

## analyses have

confirmed that all numeric effluent limitations can be met.

Water from the JD-7 mine and JD-9 mine waste 

## dumps (1.98 acres and 2.4 acres 

## respectively), described in the Cotter 

## Corporation’s Stormwater 

### management Plan 

### (SWMP), have been 

### included in this 

## permit as process water. This process water was 

## mis-categorized in the SWMP as stormwater. Three

new 

### outfalls have been included from the mines waste 

## dumps.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 3, PermitNo. C0003625I

Note that 

### because the limitations are set at 

### either the water 

## quality standards, or 

### th~ federal 

### ELGs,and the 

## discharge 

## quantity is 

## subject to the 

## intensity and/or duration of a storm 

### event, 

## ..flow limitation has not been 

### added at 

### these outfalls. A flow 

### limit is not needed as there is no 

## dilution:granted, and no matter 

### what the flow 

### is, it 

### would not 

## change the 

### limitations;however,documentation of

### snowmelt and rainfall have been 

### included in the 

## permit for the three new outfalls 

### (seePart l.AA. ofthe 

## permit).

III.. RECEIVING STREAM

A. 

### Waterbody Identification: 

### COGULD03a,unnamed tributaries ofEast Paradox 

### Creek and Bull 

### Canyon.

B. Water 

### Quality Assessment 

### (WQA):

An assessment 

### of the stream 

### standards, low flow 

### data, and ambient stream data has been 

## performed to 

### determine the assimilative 

### capacities for the unnamed tributaries of East Paradox Creek and Bull 

### Canyon, for 

## potential pollutants of concern. This 

### information, which is 

### contained in the 

### WQA, also 

### includes an 

## antidegradation review,where 

## appropriate. The 

### Division’s Permits 

### Section has reviewed the 

### assimilative 

## capacities to 

### determine the 

## appropriate water 

## quality-based effluent limitations as well as 

## potential limits based on 

### the anti 

## degradation evaluation,where 

## applicable. The 

### limitations based on 

### the assessment 

### and other evaluations conducted as 

### part of 

### this rationale can be 

### found in Part LA of the 

## permit.
Outfall 001A and 

### Outfall 002A 

### will continue to be the authorized 

## discharge points to the 

## receiving streams.
Outfalls 

### 001B,002B and 002C have been included in 

### this

## permit.

IV. FACILITY DESCRIPTION

A. 

### Industry 

## Description
The Cotter 

## Corporation JD-7 and JD-9 mines are 

### underground uranium and 

### vanadium mines. Prior to 

### 1980,the 

## design 

## production rate was 150 

## tons/day.According to the rationale to 

### the 

## previous permit, "the ore was not 

## processed on site but was 

## transported to the Cotter Canon 

## City milling facility for 

## processing." Since 1980 the 

### mines have not been 

## actively 

## operating. While not 

## actively producing, the JD-7 

### and JD-9 mines are 

## kept in an 

### active 

## standby status 

## ready to resume 

## production. Since the mine 

### facilities are intermittent 

### operations that,while not 

## actively producing, do 

### conduct

## mining activities, the 

### facilities are 

## subject to the 

## provisions ofthe Federal Clean Water Act and 

## applicable State 

## Discharge 

## Regulations.

1. 

### Type of

## Industry

-The JD-7 and JD-9 

### mine are 

## underground uranium and 

### vanadium mines.

2. Sources to the Treatment Plant

-Water from the JD-7 and JD-9 waste 

## dumps (1.98 acres and 2.4

acres 

## respectively), currently 

## categorized as storm water in the 

### SWMP, have 

### been included in this 

## permit as process water.
The wastewater sources consist ofdewatered mine water and process water from the mines waste



## dump. Stormwater runoff is diverted so that it does not enter the 

### ponds or 

### treatlnent 

### system. The dewatered mine water is collected from the 

### mines and 

## pumped to sumps,

### whe~ the sumps are full theCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC HEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 4, PermitNo. C00036251

water 

### is

## pumped to the 

### surface water treatment

## plants. The process water 

### from 

### ~he 

## dumps is 

## currently 

## discharged through the stormwater 

## drainage channels.

3. 

### Chemicals 

### Usage -The

## permittee stated in the 

### renewal 

## application that 

## they utHize two 

### chemicals in their treatment process. 

### These chemicals are 

### summarized in 

### Table IV-I.

Table IV-1

-Chemical Additives 

### Chemical Name 

### Purpose Constituents ofConcern ..

## Acceptable? Yes or No Barium Chloride 

## Precipitate Ra-226 

### Barium Chloride Yes
Nalclear 8184 Flocculant Settle solids 

## Ethoxylated Alcohol Yes



### Chemicals deemed 

## acceptable for use in waters that will or may 

### be 

## discharged to waters 

### ofthe 

### State are 

### acceptable 

## only when used in accordance with all state and 

### federal 

## regulations, and in strict accordance 

### with the manufacturer’s 

## site-specific instructions.

B. Wastewater Treatment 

### Description
The wastewater treatment processes at JD-7 and JD-9 

### mines are 

### similar. Water 

### from the mines is 

### pumped to the 

### surface,treated 

### with a 3%barium chloride 

### solution,and then allowed to 

## precipitate and settle in two

## hypalon-lined ponds, connected in series. As noted in the last 

## permit rationale,waste



### sludge removed from the 

## lagoons is characterized 

## prior to 

## being transported to 

## th~ Cotter 

## Corporation Canon 

## Chy uranium 

## milling 

## facility for 

## disposal in the 

## tailings impoundments at 

### that location. The Cotter 

## Canyon 

## Chy Mill 

## Disposal site is a 

### licensed radioactive materials 

## disposal site under the 

## jurisdiction ofthe Hazardous 

### Materials and Waste 

### Management Division ofthe Colorado 

### Department of Public Health and Environment.

The 

### mine facilities are intermittent 

## operations. The last 

## discharge 

## reported for JD-7 and JD-9 mines were

on June 

### 30,2006.
V-notch weirs are used at 

### outfalls 001A 

### and 002A for 

### effluent flow measurement.

Pursuant to 

### Section 100.6.2 ofthe Water 

### and Wastewater 

## Facility Operator Certification 

## Requirements, this 

## facility will 

## require a Class B 

### certified 

### operator.

V. PERFORMANCE HISTORY

A. 

### Monitoring Data

1. 

### Discharge 

## Monitoring Reports for 

### JD-7, Outfall 001A

- Table V-la summarizes the 

### effluent data 

### reported on the 

### Discharge 

## Monitoring Reports 

### (DMRs) for the Cotter 

## Corporation wastewater treatment 

## facility from October 

### 31, 2005 to June 

### 30, 2006.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 5, PermitNo. C00036251
Tabl VI e aummary 0 ata or

- , ut a I #

### Samples ReportedAverage 

### ReponedMaximum 

## PreviOlaJ 

# ~ Number 

### of Parameter or Concentrations Concentrations 

# A~axlt1 Limit 

### Reporting Periods 

### A~inIMax 

### AvglMinIMax Permit

# Li"1 Excursions : 

### Effluent Flow 

### (MGD) 9 0.0075/0.0044/0.024 0.018/0.0065/0.057 Report/Report 

### IpH(su)* 9 7.7/7.1/8.1 8/7.7/8.5 6.5 -9 TSS,

### eflluent (m~/l) 9 7.3/0/22 7.3/0/22 20/30/ 1 Oil and Grease 

### (m~/l) 6 NA/NA/NA 010/0 NA/10/ 0 TDS (m~/l) 3 2668/694/3990 2668/694/3990 

### Report/Report/ U, TR 

### (fJg/l) 9 2242/500/4200 2293/500/4200 2000/4000 5 Zn, TR 

### (fJg/l) 9 11/0/26 12/0/26 500/1000 Radium 226+228 (pCi/1 3 2.4/0.5/4.2** 2.3/0/6.5 5/10 Radium-226 Dis 

### (pCi/l) 9 0.21/<0.15/0.4 0.31/<0.15/0.8 3/10 Radium-226 Tot 

### (pCi/l) 9 3.1/<0.2/13 4.6/<0.2/21 10/30 1 *The

### pHdata shows the minimum 

### reported values in the 

### "average" column, and the "maximum" 

### reported values in the "maximum column. 

### **Reported average concentration for Radium 226+228 are 

### Quarterly average as 

### reported in the DMR s fDMRD ~ JD 7 0 f II OOlA

NA means Not 

### Applicable


## Discharge Monitoring Reports for 

### JD-9,Outfall 002A

- Table V-Ib 

### summarizes the effluent data 

## reported on the 

## Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for the Cotter 

## Corporation wastewater treatment 

## facility from 

## February 28,2003 to June 

### 30, 2006.The table 

## compiles all 

## reported discharges since the

last

## permit was issued on December 

### 30, 2002.

Tabl V Ib S fDMRD fi JD 9 0 tf II 002A e

- - ummaryo ata or

- , u a #

### Samples ReportedAverage 

### Reported Maximum Previo. ’" Number 

### of Parameter or Concentrations Concentrations 

### AvglM~ 4D Limit 

### Reporting AvglMinIMax 

### AvglMinIMax Permit~ ’1Iit Excursions Periods i I i !l Effluent Flow 

### (MGD) 41 0.011/0.0037/0.019 0.018/0.0052/0.044 Report/Re Dort NA IpH (su)* 41 8.1/7.2/8.6 8.4/7.6/8.8 6.5

- 9 0 TSS, effluent (mg/l) 41 6.1/0/18 6.1/0/18 20/30/ 0 Oil and Grease 

### (mg/l) 20 NA/NA/NA 0/0/0 NA/10/ 0
TDS (m~/I) 14 1572/1220/2356 1572/1220/2356 

### Report/Report/ NA U, TR (p~/I) 40 0.73/<0.01/1.4 0.72/<0.01/1.4 2000/4000 0 Zn, TR (pg/I) 41 0.0041/<0.002/0.015 0.0041/<0.002/0.015 500/JOOO 0 Radium 226+228 

### (PCi/l) 9 1.1/<0.2/3.1 2.6/<0.2/26 5/10 2 Radium-226 Dis 

### (PCi/l) 41 0.83/<0.15/9.6 0.86/<0.15/9.6 3/10 2 Radium-226 Tot (pCi/1) 41 3.2/<0.2/26 3.4/<0.2/26 JO/30 4 *ThepHdata shows the minimum reported values in the "average" column, and the "maximum" 

### reported values in the "maximum column. NA means Not 

### ApplIcableCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 6, PermitNo. C00036251

B. 

## Compliance With Terms and Conditions ofPrevious Permit

1. Effluent 

### Limitations

-The data shown in the 

## preceding tables indicate 

### apparent violations ofthe 

## permit. As 

### indicated in 

### Table 

### V-la, 55% 

### of

## sample reports from 

### outfall 001A 

### for uranium exceeded the

## permit limit.Uranium 

### report of 10/31/2005 exceeded the

## permit limit 

## by 1110%.

### Likewise, several

## permit violations were noted 

### from Outfall 002A.

### Radium 226+228 

## sample result of 12/31/2004 exceeded the 

## permit limit

## by 418%.

### Others are total 

### radium 226 

### of 

### 12/31/2004,exceeded the 

## permit limit 

## by 159%;radium 226 of

### 02/29/2004,exceeded the

## permit limit 

## by 220%.There

were 

### also several non-numeric violations such as late 

### submission of

## discharge monitoring reports.

An 

### August 9,2006 

### letter from the Division’s Enforcement Unit informed the Cotter 

## Corporation that the Division was 

## initiating a review process to determine whether a formal 

### enforcement action was warranted. The 

### Division 

## requested a written response with a deadline of

### August 23,2006,for Cotter 

## Corporation to inform the Division ofmeasures 

## they have taken or will take to abate the non

## compliance. Cotter 

## Corporation’s response dated 

### August 30,2006,informed 

### the Division 

### that 

## they had ceased 

## dewatering activities at both 

### mines and 

### would evaluate methods tOl 

### maintain the Total Uranium content at outfall 

### 001A, 

## prior to any 

## discharge. Cotter 

## Corporation also informed the Division that 

## they began the use ofanionic flocculant at outfall 002A in

## April 2005,in an 

### effort to

aid the 

## settling of

## suspended matter and 

## subsequently reduce radium 226.

### Cotter stated 

### that

## prior to

any 

## discharges at 001A at JD7 

## they would 

### evaluate methods to 

### maintain the 

### total uranium content 

### in the future 

## discharges below 

## permit conditions. This may 

## require a 

## simple gravity flow ion 

## exchange system at the 

## discharge to 

### outfall 001A. The last 

## reported discharge from 

### outfalls 001A and 

### 002A,

were dated June 

### 30, 2006.

As a 

### result ofthe 

## permittee’s 

## compliance history, the Division finds it 

## necessa;ry to 

### include additional 

## provision that 

## requires the 

## permittee to 

### contain the effluent until 

# an.lyses have confirmed that all numeric effluent 

### limitations can be met. This 

## requirement to 

### contain 

## the effluent 

## applies to 

### all outfalls with numeric 

### limitations.

VI. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT

A. Discussion ofEffiuent Limitations

1. 

## Technology Based 

### Limitations

a. Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines

- The Federal 

## guidelines that 

## apply to this 

### type of

## facility

are 

### found under 40 CFR 

### 440.32,titled Ore 

## Mining and 

## Dressing Point 

### Source 

### Category; 

## Subpart C

- 

### Uranium,Radium and Vanadium Ores 

## subcategory. ELGs continue 

### t<)> be 

## applied to Outfalls 001A and 

### 002A, which receive dewatered mine water. Water 

### from the 

### J0-7 mine 

### and JD-9 mine waste 

## dumps (1.98 acres and 2.4 acres 

## respectively),described in 

### the 

### Cott~r 

## Corporation’s Stormwater 

### management Plan 

### (SWMP), have been 

### included in 

### this 

## permit as process water and

as 

### also 

## subject to 

### effluent limitation 

## guidelines. This process water was 

## mis-categorized in the SWMP as stormwater. The Federal 

## guideline regulations at 40 CFR 440.132 include "wastes 

### and rock 

## dumps" in 

### the definition "mine"and "mine

## drainage""means any water 

### drained, 

## pumped, or 

## siphoned from a 

### mine". Wet 

### weather flows from active 

## mining areas were 

### included in 

## developing the 

### effluent 

## guideline regulations and 

### therefore are 

## subject t9 

### the 

## regulations. Rainfall that comes into contact 

### with waste 

## piles also meets the definition ofprocess wastewater 

### (processwater) at 

## Regulation 61.2(82). The Division has a 

## Policy and 

### Guidance on theCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 7, PermitNo. C00036251


### definition ofprocess water 

### and storm water at 

### non-coal 

## mining sites 

## (02/1$/1993) that was 

## developed for the purpose 

### of

## defining what sources are 

## subject to 

### Federal 

### effluent limitation 

## guidelines. This 

### determination has been made 

### consistent with that 

### Division 

## policy.

All 

### Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines 

## (ELG) under 40 CFR 

### 440.32,titled Ore 

## Mining and 

## Dressing Point Source 

## Category; Subpart C

- 

### Uranium,Radium and 

### Vanadium Ores 

## subcategory,and all 

## applicable State 

### standards,have been 

## applied to as 

### effective 

## immediately. Consistent 

### with the 

## requirements ofthe Clean Water Act 

### and 40 CFR 

### 125.3,

## compliance schedules are not 

### allowed for effluent limits based on 

## technology based 

### standards established in accordance 

### with Federal 

## requirements. In 

### the 1970s 

### and 

### 1980s,EPA 

## provided some 

## opportunity for additional time to come into 

### compliance with these 

### types ofeffluent 

### limitations,but now the 

## compliance deadlines have 

## passed.
The 

### limitations that 

## apply are found in Table VI-I.

Table VI-l- Federal Standards 

### (40CFR 440.32 &

### 33). (Alllimitations are 

### expressed as 

### mg/l unless otherwise s ecified



### Total 

## Suspended Solids Dissolved 

### Radium-226

## pCi/1 Total Radium -226

## pCIIl Total Uranium COD Total Zinc 

### pH, s.u. Limitations 

## 30-Day Avg.Concentration 

## Daily Max.

### Con entration 20 30 

### Parameter

3 10 2 100 0.5 10 30 4 200 1.0 6.0 to 9.0

i. Total 

## Suspended Solids

- The TSS concentrations from the Federal 

### standards above are the most 

## stringent effluent limits and are 

### therefore 

## applied. These limitations are the same as those 

### contained in the 

## previous permit and are 

## imposed effective 

## immediately,for Outfalls 

### 001A, 

### 001B,002A,and 002B.

ii. Dissolved Radium-226

- A Federal ELG exists 

### for dissolved radium 

### 226. The limitations

are 3

## pCi/l for 

## 30-day average and 10

## pCi/l for 

## daily maximum. These 

### limitations are 

### the same

as those 

### contained in 

### the 

## previous permit and are 

## imposed effective 

## immediately,for Outfalls 

### 001A,001B,002A,002B and 002C.

iii. Total 

### Radium -226

- A Federal ELG exists for total radium 226.The 

### limitations are 10

## pCi/l, for 

## 30-day average 

### and 30

## pCi/l for 

## daily maximum. These 

### limitations are the same as 

### those contained in the 

## previous permit and are 

## imposed effective 

## immediately,for Outfalls 

### 001A, 001B,002A,002B and 002C.

iv. Total Uranium

- The RP 

## analysis discussed below resulted in no RP 

### for outfall 

### 002A, 

### however,the Federal ELG limits of2000/4000 

## Ilg/l for 

### 30-day 

## average/daily maximum for totalCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 8, PermitNo. C0003625I


### uranium will 

## apply to all outfalls. These 

### limitations are 

### the same as those 

### ’contained in the 

## previous permit for outfalls OOlA and 002A.

v. COD

- A Federal ELG 

### exists for COD 

### for 100

## mg/l, 

## 30-day average 

### limitation and 200

## mg/l daily maximum. These limitations are 

### the same as 

### those contained in

## previous permits except the 

### last issued 

## permit,which eliminated 

### this 

## requirement without 

## specific reasons. 

### These limitations have been included in this 

## permit, for 

### Outfall OOlA 

### and 

### Outfall 002A.

vi. 

### Total Zinc

- 

### The RP 

## analysis discussed below 

### resulted in no RP 

### for the zinc 

## WQBEL at outfall 

### 002A, 

### however,the Federal ELG 

### limits of 500/1000 

## ~g/l for 

## 30-day average/daily maximum for total 

### zinc,will 

## apply to all outfalls. These 

### limitations are 

### the same as 

### those contained in 

### the

## previous permit for outfalls OOlA and 002A.

vii. 

### Iili

- The 

### pH limitation 

## specified in the ELG 

### is not 

### the most 

## stringent and thus is not 

### used as 

### discussed below.

b. 

## Regulation 62:

## Regulations for Effluent Limitations

- 

### These 

## Regulations include effluent limitations that 

## apply to 

### all 

## discharges ofwastewater to State waters. 

### These 

## regulations are 

## applicable to the 

## discharge from the Cotter 

## Corporation JD-7 

### and JD-9 

### Mihes’ WWTF.

1. 

### Oil and Grease

-The oil and grease limitations from the 

## Regulations 

## fqr Effluent Limitations

are 

## applied as 

## they are the most 

## stringent limitations. These 

### limitations are 

### the same as 

### those contained in the 

## previous permit and are 

## imposed effective 

## immediate~y,for Outfalls 

### OOlA, OOlB, 002A,002B and 002C.

11. 

### Total 

## Suspended Solids

- 

### The limitation for TSS in 

## Regulation 62does not 

## apply as a Federal ELG exists for this 

### parameter.

2. Water 

### Quality 

## Regulations and Guidance Documents

a. Water 

## Quality Assessment

-The 

### WQA contains the evaluation 

## ofpollu1:a4ts limited 

## by water 

## quality standards. The mass balance 

## equation shown in Section IV ofthe 

### WQA was 

### used for most 

## pollutants to 

### calculate the 

## potential water 

## quality based 

### effluent 

### limitations 

### (WQBELs), M2, that could be 

## discharged without 

## causing the water 

## quality standard to 

### be violated. A 

### detailed discussion ofthe calculations for the maximum allowable concentrations 

### for radium 

### 226+228, and metals is

## provided in 

### Section VI ofthe 

### WQA.
The 

## potential WQBELs determined as 

### part ofthese calculations 

### represent the calculated effluent limits that would be 

## protective ofwater 

## quality. Both acute and 

### chronic 

### WQBELs may be calculated based on acute and chronic 

### standards,and these may be 

## applied as 

## daily maximum 

### (acute) or 

## 30-day average 

### (chronic)limits.

b. 

## Antidegradation

- The unnamed tributaries ofEast Paradox Creek and 

### Bull 

## Canyon to 

### the Dolores River are Use 

### Protected,therefore,

## antidegradation review is not 

## vequired,pursuant to Section 31.8 ofThe Basic Standards and 

## Methodologies for Surface Water.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 9, PermitNo. C00036251

c. 

### Determination ofTotal Maximum 

## Daily Loads 

### (TMDLs)

- 

### The Dolores 

### Rliver is on the 

## 303(d) list 

### ofwater 

## quality impacted streams 

### for total recoverable iron. 

### Since the’

## discharge is not 

## expected to reach the Dolores River from any of

### the 

### outfalls,

## monitoring for iron will not be 

## required at 

### this time.

d. 

### Colorado 

## Mixing Zone 

## Regulations

- Pursuant to 

### section 31.10 ofThe 

### Basic Standards and 

## Methodologies for Surface 

### Water, a

## mixing zone 

### determination is 

## required for this 

## permitting

action. The Colorado 

## Mixing Zone 

### Implementation Guidance,dated 

## April 2002,identifies the process 

### for 

## determining the 

## meaningful limit on the area 

## impacted by a 

## discharge to surface

water where standards may be exceeded 

## (i.e.,

## regulatory mixing zone). This 

## guidance document 

## provides for 

### certain exclusions from 

### further 

## analysis under the 

## regulation,based on 

## site-specific conditions.

The 

## guidance document 

## provides a

## mandatory, stepwise decision-making process for 

## determining ifthe 

## permit limits will not be 

### affected 

## by this 

## regulation. Exclusion,based on Extreme 

## Mixing Ratios,may be 

## granted if

### the ratio ofthe 

## design flow to 

### ~e chronic low flow 

### (30E3) is 

### greater than 2:1 or ifthe 

### ratio ofthe 

### chronic low flow to the 

## design flow is 

### greater than 20:1. Since the direct 

## receiving stream is a zero low flow 

### stream,the 

## exemption has 

### been met 

### and no further 

## analyses are 

## required under 

### the 

## regulation.

e. 

## Agricultural Use Protection

-Section 

## 31.11(1)(a)(iv)ofThe 

### Basic 

### Standards and 

## Methodologies for Surface Waters 

## (RegulationNo. 

### 31)includes the 

### narrative standard 

### that State 

### surface waters 

### shall be free ofsubstances 

### that are 

### harmful to 

### the beneficial uses or 

### toxic to 

### humans,animals, 

## plants, or 

## aquatic life.

As stated in

## Appendix A,the water in 

### the unnamed tributaries ofEast

# parJdox Creek and 

### Bull 

### Canyon is not used for 

## irrigation. ’

f. Reasonable Potential 

## Analysis

- 

## Using the assimilative 

## capacities contained in the 

### WQA,an 

## analysis must be 

## performed to determine whether to include the 

### calculated assimilative 

## capacities

as 

### WQBELs in the 

## permit. This reasonable 

## potential (RP) 

## analysis is 

## base~ on the Determination 

### ofthe 

## Requirement to Include Water 

## Quality Standards-Based 

### Limits in 

### CDPS Permits Based on Reasonable 

### Potential,dated 

### December,2002. This 

## guidance document

## ut~lizes both 

## quantitative and 

## qualitative approaches to establish RP 

### depending on the amount 

### of

### available data. I
A 

## qualitative determination ofRP may be made where 

## ancillary and/or 

### ad4itional treatment 

## technologies are 

## employed to reduce the concentrations ofcertain 

## pollutants. However,absent 

### limitations, a 

## facility may no 

## longer continue such 

## pollutant reductions 

# an~ therefore the 

## discharge would result in RP. For this reason,

### the Permits Section may 

### make a 

## qualitative determination that absent effluent 

### limitations,there is RP 

### for these

## pollutahts to cause or 

### contribute to exceedances 

### ofwater 

## quality standards.

A 

## qualitative RP 

### determination may 

### also be made where a Federal ELG 

### exists for a 

### parameter, and where the results 

### of a 

## quantitative analysis results in no RP. As the 

### Federal ELG is 

## typically less 

## stringent than a limitation based on the 

### WQBELs,ifthe 

## discharge was to 

### contain concentrations at 

### the ELG 

## (abovethe 

### WQBEL),the 

## discharge may cause or 

### contribute to an exceedance ofa water 

## quality standard.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality ControlDivision Rationale

-

### Page 10, PermitNo. C00036251

To 

### conduct a 

## quantitative RP 

## analysis, a 

### minimum of 10 

### effluent data

## points from the 

## previous 5 years, should be 

### used. The 

## equations set out in 

### the 

## guidance for normal 

## a.t).d lognormal distribution,where 

## applicable, are used to calculate the maximum 

### estimated 

## pollutant concentration 

### (MEPC). For data sets with 

### non-detect 

### values, and where at 

### least 30% 

### ofthe data set was 

### greater than the detection 

### level,MDL WIN 

### software is used 

### consistent with Division 

## guidance to 

### generate the mean and standard 

### deviation,which are then used to establish the 

## multipliers used to calculate the MEPC. Ifthe MDLWIN program cannot

### be used the Division’s 

## guidance prescribes the use 

### ofbest 

## professional judgment.

For some 

### parameters, recent 

### effluent data or an 

## appropriate number of

### data

## points may not be 

### available, or collected data may be in the wrong form 

### (dissolved vs. 

## total)and therefore may not be available for use in 

## conducting a RP 

## analysis. Thus,consistent with 

### Division 

## procedures, monitoring will 

### be 

## required to collect 

## samples to 

### support a RP 

## analysis and 

## subsequent decisions for a numeric limit. A 

## compliance schedule may 

### be added to 

### the 

## permit for the 

### request of a RP 

## analysis once the 

## appropriate data have been collected.

For 

### other 

### parameters, effluent data may 

### be available to conduct a 

## quantitative analysis, and 

### therefore a RP 

## analysis will 

### be conducted to 

### determine if

### there is RP 

### for 

### the effluent 

## discharge to

cause or 

### contribute to 

### exceedances ofambient water 

## quality standards. 

### The 

## guidance specifies that ifthe MEPC exceeds the maximum allowable 

## pollutant concentration:

### (MAPC), limits must 

### be established and where the MEPC is 

### greater than halfthe MAPC 

## (butless than the 

### MAPC), 

## monitoring must 

### be established. Tables VI-2A 

### and VI-2B 

### contains the 

### calculated MEPC 

## compared to the 

## corresponding MAPC,and the results 

### ofthe reasonable 

## potential evaluation, for those 

### parameters that met the data 

## requirements for Outfall 001A and 

### 002A,

## respectively. The RP 

### determination is discussed for each 

### parameter in the text below.

T bl VI2A R bl P t f I A I . t 0 tf II OOlA a e

- - easona e o en la nalysls or u a 

### 30-Day Average 7 

### -Day Awe or 

### Daily Max

. MEPC 

## !WQBEL MEPC WQBEL Reasonable Reasonable 

### (MAPC) Potential 

## ! (~PC) Potential Zn,1R ( j.Jg/l) 26 2000 No (Qual) 26 NA NA Radium 226+228 (pCi/l) 4.2 5 Yes (Qual) 6.5 NA NA

Table VI-2B

- Reasona

Parameter ble Potential

### Analysis for Outfall 002A 

### 30-Day Average 7-Day 

## Av~ior Daily Max 

# ...~~...=~l~’:=~--~~ 

# =~I~~:~

. : 0.018 

### 2000! No 0.018 NA 

### i NA

..................... ......................{..............-----..-------_... ---......._-.....-.-. .......................................................- NA 

### 5! Yes 

### (Qual) 26 NA 

### i NA Zn,1R(~l) Radium 226+228 (pCi/l)

3. Pollutants 

### Limited 

## by Water 

## Quality Standards


### ill:I

-This 

### parameter is limited 

## by the water 

## quality standards of 6.5-9.0 s.u., 3:S this range is

more 

## stringent than the range 

## specified under the 

## Regulations for Effluent 

## Li~itations and the federal ELGs. This limitation is the same as that contained in the 

## previous permit and is 

## imposed effective 

## immediately,for Outfalls 

### 001A,001B,002A,002B and 002C.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page II, PermitNo. C00036251

RP 

### Analysis for JD-7 

### Mine,Outfall OOlA
Total 

### Zinc There were not 

## enough data 

### available to 

## perform a RP 

## analysis for total 

### zinc,however, a 

## qualitative determination ofno RP has been 

### made due to the 

## highest concentrated noted 

### in the 

## discharge vs. 

### the 

### WQBEL. The 

### Federal ELG limits of 

### 500/1000

## J.Lg/I for 

## 30-day 

## averagelDaily maximum are more 

## stringent than the 

### WQBEL for total recoverable 

### zinc,and therefore will 

## apply,effective 

## immediately.

Total 

### Radium 226+228 There were not 

## enough data 

### available to 

## perform a RP 

## analysis for total 

### radium 

### 226+228,

### however, a 

## qualitative RP 

### have been made as the 

## facility has had 

### violations for total radium 226. The 

### limitation for 

### total radium 226+228 is based on the 

### WQBEL of 5

## pCi/1 for a 

## 30-day average. This 

### WQBEL is based on 

### Section 31.11 

### (2) ofthe Basic Standards 

### and 

## Methodologies for Surface Water to 

### protect the waters ofthe state from 

### radionuclides chemicals.A 

## 30-day average 

### limitation of 5

## pCi/1 for total 

### radium 

### 226+228,has 

### been included in 

### the 

## permit. This 

### is the same 

### limitation 

### in the

## previous permit and is 

### effective 

## immediately.

RP 

## Analysis for JD-9 

### Mine,Outfall 002A


### Total Zinc

The RP 

## analysis for 

### total zinc was 

### based upon the water 

## quality standards,which is the 

### WQBELs for total 

### zinc. With the 

### available 

### data, the 

## lognormalprogram was 

### used to 

### determine the 

## appropriate statistics to 

### determine the MEPC.

### The MEPC was 

## significantly less than half

### the MAPC 

### of2000 

## J.Lg/I for 

## 30-day average. Since the RP 

## analysis results in no 

### RP,the Federal 

### ELG limits 

### of 500/1000 

## J.Lg/I for 

## 30-day 

## average/Daily maximum 

### for total 

### zinc will 

## apply, effective 

## immediately.
Total Radium 226+228 There were not 

## enough data available to 

## perform a RP 

## analysis for total 

## radiwp 226+228,

### however, a 

## qualitative RP have been made as there have been 

### violations ofthe water 

## q~ty standard. The 

### limitation for total 

### radium 226+228 

### is based on the 

### WQBEL of 5

## pCi/1 for a 

## 30-day average. This 

### WQBEL is 

### based on Section 

### 31.11(2)ofThe Basic Standards and 

## Methodologies for Surface Water to 

### protect the waters ofthe state from radionuclides chemicals.A 

## 30-day average limitation of 5 

## pCi/1 for total radium 

### 226+228,has been included in the 

## permit. This is the same limitation in the 

## previous 

## permit and 

### is effective 

## immediately.

4. 

## Organics

- The effluent is not 

### expected or known to contain 

## organic chemicals,and 

### therefore, limitations for 

## organic chemicals are not needed in this 

## permit.

5. Whole Effluent 

## Toxicity (WET) 

## Testing

- WET 

## testing is not 

## required for 

### outfalls 

### 001A,001B, 002A,002B and 

### 002C,since there are no 

## aquatic life standards for this stream 

### segment.

### However, the 

### Division reserves the 

## right to reopen the 

## permit to 

### include WET 

## testing,i:f1new information 

## (such

as the effluent 

## making it to the Dolores 

### mainstem)makes WET 

### testing necessary.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 12, PermitNo. C00036251

6. 

## Salinity Regulations

-In 

## compliance with the Colorado River 

## Salinity Standards and the Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System 

## Regulations,the 

## permittee shall monitor for total 

### dissolved solids on a 

## Quarterly basis. 

## Samples shall be taken at 

### outfalls 

### 001A,

### 001B,002A,002B 

### and 002C.

An 

### evaluation ofthe 

## discharge oftotal 

### dissolved solids indicates that the 

### Cotter 

## Corporation facility does not exceed the threshold 

### of 1 

## ton/day or 350 

## tons/year of

## salinity. To 

### determine the TDS 

## loading from this 

## facility,the average 

## reported TDS values were 

## multiplied by the average 

### flow, then 

## by 8.34. The average was determined to be 0.083 

## tons/day for outfall 

### OmA, and 0.07

## tons/day for outfall 002A. At this 

### time,Cotter 

## Corporation is 

### exempt from further 

## requirements other than 

## monitoring for TDS.

7. Stormwater

- Pursuant to 5 CCR 

### 1002-61.3(2),active 

### and inactive metal 

## mining facilities are 

## required to 

### obtain 

## permit coverage for 

## discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activities from the 

### facilities to state waters. The 

## 4th renewal 

## permit included both proce s water and stormwater

## provisions. For the 

## 5th renewal stormwater

## provisions have been 

## ~emoved and the 

### operator has obtained coverage in accordance with the CDPS General 

### Permit

# for Stormwater 

## Discharges Associated with Metal 

## Mining Operations and Mine-Waste 

### Remediation. The JD-7 Mine has coverage under Certification COR040259 and the JD-9 

### Mine has coverage under COR040260.

8. 

### Economic Reasonableness Evaluation

-

### Section 

## 25-8-503(8)ofthe 

### revised 

## (June 1985)Colorado Water 

## Quality Control Act 

## required the 

### Division to 

### "determinewhether or not any or 

### all ofthe 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 

## irt furtherance ofthe 

## policies set 

### forth in 

### sections 25-8-192 

### and 25-8-104."

The 

### Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System 

## Regulations,Regulation No. 

### 61,further define 

### this 

## requirement under 61.11 and state: "Where

### economic,environmental,

## public health and energy 

## impacts to the 

## public and affected persons have been considered 

### in the 

### classifications and 

### standards 

## setting process,

## permits written to meet the standards may be 

## presumed to have taken into 

### consideration economic factors unless:

a. A new 

## permit is issued where the 

## discharge was not in existence at the 

### time ofthe 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 ofthe 

### classification and 

### standards 

## rulemaking."

The 

### evaluation for this 

## permit shows that the Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,

## during their 

## proceedings to 

## adopt the 

### Classifications and Numeric 

### Standards for 

### Gunnison and Lower Dolores River 

### Basins,considered 

### economic reasonableness. 

### Furthermore,this is not a new 

## discharger and no new 

### information has been 

## presented regarding the classifications and standards. 

### Therefore, the water 

## quality standard-based effluent 

### limitations ofthis 

## permit are 

### determined to be 

## reasonably related to the 

### economic,environmental,

## public health and energy 

## impacts to the 

## public and affected persons and are in furtherance ofthe 

## policies set 

### forth in 

### Sections 25-8-102 and 104. Ifthe 

## permittee disagrees with this 

## finding,pursuant to 61.11 

### (b 

## )(ii)of the Colorado 

## Discharge Permit 

## System 

## Regulations,the 

## permittee should 

### submit all 

## pertinent information to the Division 

### during the 

## public notice 

## period.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 13, PermitNo. C00036251

B. 

## Monitoring
Effluent 

## Monitoring

- 

### Effluent 

## monitoring will be 

## required as shown in 

### the 

## permit document. Refer to 

### the 

### permit for locations of

## monitoring points. Monitoring requirements have been 

### established in accordance with the 

## frequencies and 

## sample types set 

### forth in the Baseline 

## Monitoring Frequency, Sample Type,and 

### Reduced 

## Monitoring Frequency 

## Policy for Industrial and Domestic Wastewater Treatment 

### Facilities. This 

## policy includes the methods for 

### reduced 

## monitoring 

## frequencies based upon 

## facility compliance as well as 

### for considerations 

## given in 

## exchange for instream 

## monitoring programs 

### initiated 

## by the

## permittee. This 

## facility does not meet 

### the 

## requirement for

## performance-based reductions in 

## monitoring due to 

## compliance issues with the 

### previous 

## permit.

Ensure 

### Numeric Effluent Limits Can Be Met 

### Prior to 

### the commencement 

### ofany 

## discharge,the treated 

### effluent must 

### be 

## sampled using grab method for all 

### parameters with a 

### numeric limitation. All effluent must 

### be contained 

### until 

## analyses have confirmed that all numeric effluent limitations have been met. If

### the results of

### the initial 

## sampling exceed any 

### numeric effluent 

### limitation,additional treatment 

### shall be 

## completed and additional 

## sampling must 

### be 

### collected,post-treatment, to confirm 

## compliance with the limitations. Additional 

## sampling and treatment shall be 

## repeated,and all water shall be collected 

### and 

### retained,until 

## monitoring results for the treated 

### effluent 

## verify compliance with the numeric effluent 

### limitations 

### identified in the 

## permit. This 

## requirement will not be 

## imposed for TDS where 

### report 

## only is 

## required.

C. 

### Reporting

1. 

## Discharge Monitoring Report

-The Cotter 

## Corporation facility must submit

## Disc~arge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) on a

## monthly basis to the 

### Division. These 

### reports should 

# contair the 

## required summarization ofthe test 

### results for all 

### parameters and 

## monitoring frequencies shown in Part LA of

### the 

## permit. See the 

## permit, Part 

### LA,B,C and D for 

### details on such submission.

2. 

### Special Reports

-

## Special reports are 

## required in the event of an 

### upset,

## bypass, or 

### other 

## noncompliance. Please 

### refer to Part ILA.ofthe 

## permit for

## reporting requirements. As 

### above, submittal of

### these 

### reports to the US 

### Environmental Protection 

### Agency 

## Region VIII 

### is no 

## longer required.

D. Additional Terms and Conditions

1. 

## Signatory and Certification 

## Requirements

-

## Signatory and 

### certification 

## requirements for 

### reports and 

### submittals are discussed in Part LD.6. 

### ofthe

## permit.

E. Waste MinimizationlPollution Prevention

Waste minimization and 

## pollution prevention are two terms that are 

## becoming indreasingly more
common in 

## industry today. Waste 

### minimization includes 

## reducing the amount 

### of waste at the source 

## through changes in 

### industrial processes, and reuse and 

## recycling ofwastes for the 

## original or some other purpose 

### (such as materials recovery or energy 

## production). Pollution 

## prevention goes hand-in-hand with waste minimization. Ifthe waste is eliminated at the front 

### ofthe 

### line, it will not 

## ~ave to be treated at 

### the end of

### the line. The direct benefits to the 

## industry are 

### often 

## significant,both in 

### tetms of

### increased 

## profit and in 

## public relations. This program can affect all areas 

### ofprocess and waste 

### control with which an 

## industry deals. 

### Elimination or 

### reduction ofa wastewater 

## pollutant can 

### also result 

### in a 

### reduction in an 

### air 

## pollutant or a 

### reduction in the amount ofhazardous 

### materials that must be 

### handled or 

## disposed.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality ControlDivision Rationale

- 

### Page 14, PermitNo. C00036251



### This 

## discharge permit does not 

## specifically dictate waste 

### minimization 

### conditions at 

### this 

### time. The Division does 

## strongly encourage the 

## permittee to continue 

## working in 

## developing and 

## implementing a waste 

### minimization 

## plan. Several industries have 

## already developed plans and 

### found that 

## implementation resulted in substantial 

## savings. Both the Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment and 

### the Environmental Protection 

### Agency 

## (EPA) have information 

### and resources available. For more 

## in-depth information,

## please contact 

### these 

## agencies.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 15, PermitNo. C00036251

VII. REFERENCES

A. Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division Files.

B. 

### Basic Standards and 

## Methodologies for 

### Surface 

### Water,

## Regulation No. 

### 31,Colorado 

### Department of 

### Public Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective 

### November 

### 30,2009.

C. 

### Classifications and Numeric 

### Standards for Gunnison and Lower Dolores 

### River 

### Basins,

## Regulation No. 

### 35,Colorado 

### Department of

### Public Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission, effective June 

### 30,2010.

D. Colorado 

### Discharge Permit 

### System 

## Regulations,Regulation No. 

### 61,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective 

## September 30,2009.

E. 

## Regulations for Effluent 

### Limitations,

## Regulation No. 

### 62,Colorado 

## Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective March 

### 30,2008.

F. Pretreatment 

## Regulations,Regulation No. 

### 63,Colorado 

## Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment, Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective 

## April 01,2007.

G. 

### Biosolids 

## Regulation,Regulation No. 

### 64,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and Environment Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective March 

### 30,2010.

H. 

### Colorado River 

## Salinity Standards,

## Regulation No. 

### 39,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective 

### August 30, 1997.

I. 

### Section 303 d List ofWater 

### ualit Limited Se ments Re uirin TMDLs and 

### onitorin and Evaluation 

### List,

## Regulation No 

### 93,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

# E~vironment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective 

## April 30,2010.

J. 

## Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water 

## Quality Impacts,Procedural 

### Guidance,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment,Water 

# QualitY Control 

### Division,

effective December 2001.

K. Memorandum Re: First 

## Update to 

## (Antidegradation) Guidance Version 

### 1.0,Colorado 

### Department of 

### Public Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division,effective 

## April 23, 2002.

L. 

### Determination ofthe 

## Requirement to Include Water 

## Quality Standards-Based 

### Limits in CDPS 

### Permits Based on Reasonable 

### Potential Procedural 

### Guidance,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division,effective December 2002.

M. 

### The Colorado 

## Mixing Zone 

## Implementation Guidance,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division, effective 

## April 2002.

N. 

### Baseline 

## Monitoring Frequency,

## Sample Type,and Reduced 

## Monitoring Frequency 

## Policy for Domestic and 

### Industrial Wastewater Treatment 

### Facilities, Water 

## Quality Control Division 

## Policy WQP-20,

### May 1, 2007.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 16,Permit No. C00036251

O. 

## Implementing Narrative Standards in 

## Discharge Permits for the 

### Protection 

## ofIrrigated Crops,Water 

## Quality Control Division 

## Policy WQP-24,March 

### 10,2008.

P. 

## Regulation Controlling 

## discharges to Storm 

### Sewers,

## Regulation No. 

### 65,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic 

### Health and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Commission,effective 

### May 30,2008.
Q. Water and Wastewater 

## Facility Operators Certification 

## Requirements,

## Regulation No. 

### 100,Colorado 

### Department ofPublic Health 

### and 

### Environment,Water 

## Quality Control 

### Division, effective 

### January 30, 2010.

R. Code 

### ofFederal 

## Regulations (40CFR Part 

### 440,titled Ore 

## Mining and 

### Dressing Point Source 

### Category, Subpart C), Office ofthe Federal 

### Register, Government 

### Printing Office, effective 

### May 24, 1998.

VIII. PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS

Comments were received from Cotter 

## Corporation (Cotter) and from the 

### Energy Minerals Law Center on behalf 

### ofthe 

## Sheep Mountain 

### Alliance 

## during the 

## 90-day public notice 

## period. Topical summaries ofthe comments 

### and the response 

### ofthe 

### Division are 

## given below. 

## Copies ofthe comments 

### and 

### attachment are located in 

### Division files and 

### will be made 

### available upon 

### request.
Several comments 

### received from the 

### Energy Law Center were either 

## beyond the scope 

### ofthis wastewater 

## discharge permit or not 

### within the

## jurisdiction ofthe 

### WQCD 

### (the

## Division). Several comments were related to



## ground water 

## impact,which is 

### regulated 

## by the Colorado Division ofReclamation and 

### Mine 

## Safety (DRMS). These comments 

### will be forwarded to DRMS.

Comments received from Cotter 

### Corporation

COMMENT 1: On 

### Page 4 of20 ofthe 

## proposed permit, there appear to be 

## typographical error 

### for 

### effluent 

### parameter CBOD5. 

### The other three 

### outfalls are 

## being sampled for 

### COD,outfall 001A has CBOD5.

RESPONSE 1: The 

## typographical error has been 

### corrected. The correct 

### parameter is COD.

COMMENT 2:

In the 

### Factsheet, Section IV.A.2. it states "Because

### the mine water has been in contact 

### with the 

### minerals in the 

### mines, it forms a 

### mineral-rich leachate." Cotter is not aware ofany 

## sampling ofthe 

## groundwater prior to it 

## entering the 

## underground mine 

## workings which would 

## provide a 

## good understanding of

### the 

## quality ofwater that 

### is 

## entering these mines. The 

### ground water that enters these mines 

### is 

### usually encountered 

## immediately below the

ore 

### horizon. One ofthe 

## generally 

## accepted theories 

## regarding uranium ore 

## deposition in the Uravan Mineral 

### Belt,where these 

### mines are 

### located, is that the 

## groundwater is the source 

### for the uranium that is 

## deposited here. As 

### such I do not believe this statement 

### is 

## necessarily a factual statement.An 

### alternative statement

## might be as follows: "In the 

### past, water that has been 

## discharged from these mines has had some 

### constituents which are near

or above the 

## discharge limits."COLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 17, PermitNo. C00036251


### RESPONSE 2: 

### The statement 

### has been eliminated. As 

### this section describes sources to 

### the treatment 

## facility, stating that 

### the

source is water from the mine is 

## adequate.

COMMENT 3: Cotter 

## plans to 

### install a collection 

### ditch 

## along the toe ofthe mine waste 

## dump and direct 

### the water to a 

### collection area 

### below the 

### mine waste 

## dump. Cotter 

## plans to 

## sample this water 

### twice 

## monthly as 

### weather allows. 

### This is because at 

### times in the 

### winter, when the mine is not 

### active, the 

### county road that accesses the 

### mine 

## portal

area 

### is 

## impassable due to 

### windblown snow.
RESPONSE 3: The Division has 

### added the 

## following footnote to 

### the 

## permit limitations tables 

## allowing for a winter 

## monitoring

exemption: "Monitoringmay be waived when the site is inaccessible

### for the entire 

### monitoring

## period. The 

### permittee is 

## responsiblefordocumenting that the conditions at the site 

### did not 

### allow

## for access. " The Division has 

### reduced the 

## monitoring requirement for 

### Outfalls 

### 001B,002B and 002C to 

## monthly, as this will be 

### sufficient 

## monitoring for wastewater 

## resulting from 

## precipitation. Note 

### that any collection area 

### should be 

## designed and constructed to 

### prevent 

## impacts to 

## groundwater to meet all necessary 

## regulatory requirements.

Comments received from the 

### Energy Minerals Law Center on behalf of

## Sheep Mountain 

### Alliance, Colorado Citizens 

## Against Toxic 

### Waste,and Environment Colorado. These comments have 

### been 

## grouped by general 

## topic.

COMMENT 4:

### Colorado 

## Open Records Act 

## (CORA). Comments 

### submitted may 

### be 

## updated based upon 

### review ofadditional agency 

### documents which have not 

### yet been 

## gathered from 

### WQCD field offices for review and release. CORA 

### records do not reveal current stormwater

## permits for JD-7 

### and JD-9 mines.

RESPONSE 4: The 

### WQCD has made several 

### attempts to inform 

## Sheep Mountain Alliance that the 

### requested files were available. E-mails and 

## phone messages were delivered 

### from 9/27/2010 

## through 10/4/2010,however, 

## representatives of

## Sheep Mountain Alliance have not 

## responded.Additionally, the 

### Department’s Office of

## Legal and 

## Regional Affairs sent a letter 

## (dated 

## 10/01/2010)and 

### additional email 

## notifying the 

## Sheep Mountain Alliance 

### that the files were 

## ready for review. These contact 

### attempts were made 

### several weeks 

## prior to 

### the close ofthe

## public comment

## period.
The 

## previous permit combined stormwater and 

### "processwater"

## requirements into one 

## permit. This 

## permit includes

## just process water 

## discharge requirements. The 

## permittee maintains stormwater

### permit coverage under the

## previous individual

## permit until this reissued 

## permit is effective. Cotter has now also 

### obtained stormwater 

## permit coverage under a 

## general permit,which will remain in effect once the coverage 

# urlder the 

### individual 

## permit ends the 

## day before the effective date of

### this reissued 

## permit. The stormwater

# dis~ussion in the fact sheet 

### has been 

## updated to 

### include the 

## general permit certifications in effect for the JD-7 

### and JD-9 Mines.



### COMMENT 5:New 

## permit,

## unpermitted point sources,

### other sources 

### and 

## impact ofthe 

## proposed uranium mill. The 

### additional 

## point source 

## discharge at 

### the JD-7 and JD-9 mines 

### require the issuance 

### ofia new 

## permit, and
cannot be 

## accomplished by the abbreviated process involved with a 

## permit renewal.
The draft 

## permit identified new 

### outfalls; the 

### problem 

## requires additional 

## scrutiny and 

### immediate corrective action. 

### Similar 

## updates should be 

## expanded immediately to all mines on these 

### segments. The JD-7 hasCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 18, PermitNo. C00036251

numerous 

### other 

## point sources and 

### outfalls which are not 

### identified in the 

### WQA or the 

### draft 

## permit. The 

### WQA statement that "No

### other 

## point sources were 

### identified as 

## dischargers to the 

### unnamed 

### tributaries ofEast 

### Paradox Creek 

### and Bull 

## Canyon,upstream or 

### downstream ofthe 

### confluence with the 

### Dolores 

### River."

### WQA at 

### 17,is 

### incorrect.
The 

## proposed 

## permit does not address all 

## discharges from the Cotter mines 

### which 

## discharges into East Paradox Creek. Cotter 

## Corporation operates an 

### interconnected 

## complex ofsurface mines and 

## underground mines in the East Paradox 

## Valley.

Water 

## quality issues exist due to 

### the dozens ofactive and inactive 

### uranium mines in the 

### stream 

### segments. Some

area mines 

### which hold 

## permits from other 

### agencies lack proper 

## point source 

## discharge and stormwater

## permits, which may be 

### attributable to these 

## agencies’ erroneous 

### classification ofprocess water 

## discharges from waste 

### rock 

## piles and mine 

## workings as stormwater 

## discharge instead of

## point source 

## discharge. Some 

### inactive mine 

### operators in 

### the area have 

## simply failed to 

## apply for the necessary 

## permits,which could amount to many 

### hundreds ofthousands of

### dollars in

## potential fines should the 

### WQCD initiate 

### enforcement

## proceedings. Uranium mines which have still not 

### obtained necessary 

## permits nearly 

## forty years 

### after the Clean Water Act

was 

## passed should be 

### subjected to enforcement

## proceedings.
The 

### WQCD review ofthis 

## permit provides an 

## opportunity to create an 

## important catalyst to ensure 

### that the 

### uranium mines which dot 

### the 

## landscape in 

### these Dolores River stream 

### segments are 

## brought into 

### full 

## compliance with the Clean Water 

### Act, and 

### all other 

## applicable laws.

RESPONSES:

The JD-7 and JD-9 mines are 

### historic mines that have been 

## continuously permitted by the Division since 

### 1986, and this

## proposed permit is a renewal 

### ofan 

## administratively extended 

## permit. The process of

## developing and 

## issuing a new 

## permit and 

### renewing a

## permit are the same,and the addition of

### outfalls does not 

### require a new 

## permit.
The Division agrees 

### that the 

### inclusion ofnew outfalls in 

### this

## permit triggered the 

### inclusidn of

## permit conditions that are 

## appropriately effective the 

## day the 

## permit is effective. In 

## particular, the

# Divisionlincluded a 

## special condition 

### in the

## permit that 

## requires the 

## following "In 

### order to be able to 

## sample and 

### determine 

## compliance with the 

### limitations at 

### Outfalls 

### 001B,002B and 

### 002C,the

## permittee shall take the 

## appropriate 

## ~teps to create 

### collection and 

## holding ponds,with treatment as 

### needed, or route the water to the 

### treatmeIlt 

## ponds for Outfalls 001A 

### and 002A" 

### The Division also 

### made sure the 

## permittee was aware ofthis

# provisioniwhen the 

### draft 

## permit

was 

### released for

## public comment to 

## give the 

## permittee time to be able to conduct 

## activitiqs at the site in 

### advance of

### this 

## provision and the 

### limitations,

## monitoring and 

## reporting requirements 

## becoming 

## effective. The 

### Division became aware that a new outfall 

### needed to be included in 

### this 

## permit through its 

### review 

## dfthe 

## permit application as 

### part ofthe routine review process embedded in

## permit renewal. The 

### Division will continue this 

## practice and include 

### additional outfalls and 

## permit 

## requirements in 

### other 

## permits as 

## apprqpriate,including those related to 

## mining 

## operations.
I In this case,the 

## permit conditions would be the same 

## regardless of

### whether this 

## permit is,renewed with additional waste rock 

## piles and outfalls 

### identified, or whether a 

### separate 

## permit is issued. The source ofwater is not new and is water from the 

### mines and water from the waste rock 

## piles. Due to the zero low 

### flow condition 

### of the 

## receiving stream 

## (whereno 

### dilution is 

### granted), the water 

## quality based 

### effluent limits 

### (WQBELs) are 

### equal to the water 

## quality standards 

### (WQS) for this stream 

### segment,which are 

### the most 

## stringent limitations that can be 

## developed based on 

### WQS.
The 

## language in 

### the 

### WQA has been modified to state "TheJD-7 and JD-9 Mines are the 

## bnly permitted point

source 

### contributors to 

### the unnamed 

### tributaries ofEast 

### Paradox Creek and 

### Bull 

## Canyon. While there are 

### otherCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 19, PermitNo. C00036251


### abandoned mine 

### adits 

## potentially discharging,there are no other

## permitted point sources 

## discharging to the East



### Paradox Creek and the Bull 

## Canyon." There may be numerous

## point sources 

### within the 

### S:WTIe stream 

### segments 

## (alltributaries 

## segment),however,the 

### Division has no 

### information 

## showing any 

## permitted facility discharging into East 

### Paradox and Bull 

## Canyon.The 

### WQCC 

## Hearing Rationale for Stream 

## Segment OGULD03a to 

### which the East 

### Paradox and Bull 

## Canyon 

## belong,

## provides the 

## following information 

## regarding

# point sources in Stream 

## Segment COGULD03a "PointSources:Umetco 

### Minerals 

## discharges to 

### Lumsden 

### Creek and its tributaries 

### (CO0043575)and to 

### John Brown 

### Creek and its tributaries 

### (CO-0043591)".
Estimates state that there are over 1

### 0,000 abandoned mines in Colorado 

## (with some 

### estimates up to 

## 30,000), many of

### which do not have owners 

### that could be 

## easily identified. 

## Simply put, the 

### Division does not have the 

## ability to track 

### down all 

### abandoned,

## unpermitted,point source 

## discharges from mines. When these 

## unpermitted point sources and their owners are identified and 

## they submit

## permit application,they wilJ be 

## permitted; however, as stated in the December 

### 22, 1993,memo from EPA 

## regarding abandoned 

### hard rock 

### mines,these remain a low

## priority for

## permitting.

Note that because the 

### tributaries are 

### considered to be zero low 

### flow streams 

## (nodilution 

### available for 

## setting 

## permit limits), the 

## unpermitted sources and the 

## proposed uranium mill will have no 

## impact on the decisions 

### made on this 

## permit. There is no assimilative 

## capacity to 

### share,and all facilities will 

### receive the water 

## quality standards as 

## permit limits 

### (WQBELs).Note that the 

## permit also contains an 

### evaluation ofthe federal effluent limitation 

## guidelines (ELGs), which were 

### added as additional level of

## protection, and 

## imposed where numeric standards for a

## particular parameter did not exist in the 

### segment 

## (totalradium 

### 226,dissolved radium 

### 226). 

## Regarding possible unidentified 

## point sources within JD-7 and JD-9 

### mines, it is the 

## responsibility of

### Cotter, the mine owner to 

## identify these sources. 

### These unidentified 

## point sources 

### should not 

## preclude the Division from 

## issuing a

## permit for the proper 

## disposal ofwastewater from known sources. 

### Ifadditional :sources are 

### identified, Cotter will need to 

## provide treatment 

## independently (applying for additional outfalls und r 

### the 

## permit) or route 

### these sources to the current WWTF. Part II.A.8 

### ofthe draft 

## permit specifically prohibits 

## the permittee from 

## discharging from 

## unpermitted point sources,

## stating "Any

## discharge to the waters 

### ofthe 

## $tate from a

## point

source 

### other than 

## specifically authorized 

## by this

## permit is

## prohibited." : I COMMENT 6:Land 

### lease, use of

## public land,

## bonding issues,Mine Land Reclamation 

# ~ct,DRMS enforcement 

### actions and 

## groundwater issues. 

# r

The 

### WQCD’s crucial role in

## protecting Colorado’s waters 

### is 

## particularly important where the DOE leased these two 

## mining tracts to the 

### federal lessee Cotter 

## Corporation in 2007 

### without first 

## ensuring that these mines were not 

## violating the Clean Water Act. The Bureau ofLand 

### Management (BLM) also 

### retains concurrent

## jurisdiction

over the 

### surface use 

### ofthe 

## public lands on 

### which these mines are located.As 

### these two 

### mines are 

### part ofthe DOE’s Uranium Lease 

### Program,WQCD should ensure that DOE and BLM the main 

### federal land managers for 

### uranium 

## mining in the area,

## bring their 

## respective reg 

## latory authorities to bear to 

## remedt the 

## noncompliance with the Clean Water Act 

## requirements at 

### the DOE-leased mines and the numerous 

### other:federalland mines in these stream 

### segments.

In 

### addition to the federal

## jurisdiction and 

## responsibility for these 

### mines, any water treatm nt facilities must 

### receive 

### review,

## approval, and 

## bonding by the Colorado 

### Division of

### Reclamation and 

## Minb Safety ("DRMS") as 

### part ofan Environmental Protection Plan 

### ("EPP") which HB08- 1161 clarified is 

## required for all 

### uranium mines in 

### Colorado.

## Although DRMS 

### and DOE may 

### elect to use 

### their 

## existing bonds at 

### these 

### m41es to 

### fund work where 

### the 

### operator is unable or 

## unwilling to meet 

### environmental 

### standards,the 

### WQCD has no 

### bond in

## place. In 

### this
case, it appears that the 

## discharges needing 

## point source 

## permits may 

### well necessitate a

## perpetual water treatment 

## operation.Further,the DRMS 

### mine files 

## identify no current 

### intent to resume 

## mining operations atCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

-

### Page 20, PermitNo. C00036251


### these 

### mines, 

## leaving a 

## significant liability in 

## place at a 

### site that shows no near-term 

## potential to cover 

### the costs necessary to 

### protect water 

## quality on 

### these stream 

### segments. In 

### such a case as 

### this,the 

## WQCD should limit Colorado’s financial exposure 

## by properly implementing its 

## authority to 

## require a 

### financial 

### warranty to ensure 

### the 

## long-term operation ofthe 

## required water treatment

## plant.
The 

### Permit must 

### be 

## Implemented Consistent with the 

### Mine Land 

### Reclamation Act 

## Requitements. The Schwartzwalder Mine 

### presents a 

## good example where the 

### WQCD and the DRMS are 

## attempting to 

## implement their 

### respective 

## regulatory regimes in a 

## cooperative and 

### effective manner. 

## Unfortunately the 

### WQA does not 

### indicate any 

## recognition that any treatment 

## facility or other 

### aspect ofthese mines are 

## subject to DRMS 

### review and 

## approval in an Environmental Protection Plan.

### Here, no such Plan has been 

## proposed~ and any 

### attempt to 

### operate 

## unpermitted mine works would 

## rightly subject Cotter 

## Corporation to serious fines.
When DRMS and BLM 

### conducted the EPP 

## inquiry at the 

## nearby Sunday Mine 

## Complex,!numerous water



## quality problems were identified. See DRMS Mine File #M1977285 

### (EPPand BLM Review 

### documents dated 

### 2009-2010).

## Unfortunately, it does not appear that the necessary 

### WQCD review and 

## approvals were 

## sought as 

### part ofthe 

## ongoing BLMIDRMS 

### efforts to 

### address and 

## remedy ongoing problems as the 

## Sunday Mine 

## Complex.Likewise,when DRMS 

### reviewed the materials submitted for the 

### Schwartzwalder Mine 

### EPP,

numerous 

## problems and violations were 

### found,with 

## subsequent violations and 

## stringent requirements imposed by DRMS 

## regarding ongoing mine water 

### problems. A recent 

## inspection by the DRMS 

### reveals that the JD-9 

### mine is in 

### serious 

## disrepair with mine 

## workings affected 

## by subsidence with the 

### conditions 

### deteriorated to 

### such

a 

## degree that the 

### mine is 

## currently not 

## operable: the 

## pits are 

### lined however 

## they are 

## beyond their life 

### expectancy. 

## Although 

## multiple agencies have 

## oversight over these two 

### mines 

## subject to the 

### present draft 

## permit and 

### WQA, WQCD is 

## encouraged to take a 

### lead 

### role,while 

## engaging and 

## working in

## particularly close 

## cooperation with DRMS 

### staff to ensure 

### that the 

## regulatory 

## complexities do not 

### allow these and 

### other 

## feder~l mines to escape necessary 

## regulation and 

## protections provided by Colorado’s 

## implementation ofthe 

## Clerujl Water Act.
The 

## quality of

## tributary groundwater in the 

## vicinity and 

## downgradient ofJD-7 has been

# jsted and the data and information 

### provided to the Radiation 

### Management Unit ofCDPHE 

### have revealed 

## signi cant exceedances of 

## groundwater standards 

## downgradient from JD-7. See 

### generally: CDPHE 

### Energy Fuels A 

## plication Web

### site, see also Exh. 6 

## (Map depicting groundwater flow).

## Despite the documented 

### exceedances,

# thel JD-7 has not been 

## investigated as a

## potential source ofthe 

## downgradient contamination 

## during the 

### consideration ofthe 

## pending mill license 

## application. The 

## groundwater at the 

## adjacentproposed mill site has been 

### detdrmined as 

## tributary to the Dolores 

### River, and 

## presumably is 

## tributary to East Paradox Creek as well. Current

# te~~ing of

## groundwater down 

## gradient from JD-7 shows 

## fluctuating 

## groundwater levels and 

### reported concentratiqns ofnumerous constituents which are as much as 

## thirty-five times the 

## applicable regulatory standards 

## for groundwater.

, RESPONSE 6:

i The 

### WQCD does not have 

## jurisdiction over land 

### lease,use 

### of

## public land 

### and 

## groundwater impacts as related to mine 

## operations. Groundwater issues at 

## mining operations are under the

## jurisdiction ofthe DRMS in accordance with SB181. In response to 

### the comment the 

### Division coordinated with 

## DRMlS to 

## clarify whether the site is 

### subject to their 

## authority for

## possible groundwater impacts at the 

### site in 

### accord$Ilce with SB181.

DRMS 

### indicated that most ofthe Uranium 

### mines in this 

## vicinity were 

### permitted the 1970’s 

### and 

## early 1980’s.At 

### that 

### time,

### groundwater issues were 

## typically only minimally addressed at these 

### locations as 

## groundwater was 

## negligible and none 

### ofthe sites were 

## displaying obvious 

## groundwater problems. DRMS 

### clarified that

## prior to the

## promulgation ofHB 

### 08-1161,Uranium mines were not 

## automatically considered 

## designated mining

operations (DMO) and were therefore not 

## required to 

## develop an 

### environmental

## protectiqn plan (EPP) which

more 

## specifically required groundwater information and 

## protection as 

### part ofthe EPP 

### submittal. 

## Subsequent to the 

### statutory 

## changes resulting from HB 

### 08-1161,these sites are now DMO’s

## by statute 

### and 

## subject toCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division 

### Rationale-Page 21, PermitNo. C00036251


### additional environmental 

## requirements as it 

## pertains to 

## groundwater. DRMS 

### did not 

## require EPPs for 

### Uranium sites that were 

### in 

### temporary cessation 

## prior to 

### May 20,2008 

## (signing ofHB 

### 08-1161)and remained inactive while 

## regulations to 

## implement the HB 

### 08-1161 

## requirements were 

## promulgated. This 

## rulemaking process was 

## completed on 

## September 30,2010.DRMS 

### is 

## currently working to 

## require EPPs 

### for all 

## permitted Uranium mines 

## including those in 

### temporary cessation. The scope 

### ofthe EPP process 

### does include:

## groundwater protection under the 

## authority 

## granted to DRMS in accordance 

### with SB 181. On that

### basis, the 

### Division clarified that DRMS is the SB181 

## groundwater 

## authority for this site at this time. The 

## Division has referred a copy ofthe comments received 

## regarding groundwater concerns to DRMS. 

### Any 

## addition;al 

## questions and issues 

### related to 

## groundwater, DRMS 

### enforcement,DRMS 

## bonding,mine 

## operations, and Mine Land 

### Reclamation Acts should be directed to DRMS.



## Regarding bonding and financial

### warranty, it is the Division’s 

### determination that it is 

### notinecessary to include 

### conditions in 

### this

## permit 

## requiring a 

### financial 

### warranty. The comment states that 

### in 

### Cas~ No.

### WQ 2008-0003,

re: CDPS PermitNo. 

### CO-0035394,U.S.

## Energy 

## Corporation,Lucky Jack 

## Project, an 

### Adffiinistrative Law 

## Judge 

## recognized that 

### the Division has 

### "inherent

## authority to 

## impose financial assurances as a

## permit condition when 

## ’necessary’to ensure 

## compliance with a

## permit". 

## Historically the 

### Division has never 

## required financial

assurance from facilities 

## applying for a CDPS 

## permit. The Division has no reason to 

### believe that the 

### discharge associated with this

## permit poses a threat 

## substantially different than that ofany ofthe 

### other 

## permits that would 

### prompt financial assurance 

## requirements or that 

### financial assurance is necessary in 

### this case to ensure 

## compliance with the terms and 

### conditions ofthis 

## permit. The terms and conditions the 

### Division included in 

### this 

## permit are 

### enforceable, and the 

### Division has broad enforcement authorities that allow 

### it to address 

## permit non

## compliance.

COMMENT 7:National 

### Environmental 

## Policy Act 

### (NEPA) or the 

## Endangered 

## Species

## Act. Impacts to 

### Threatened and 

## Endangered Wildlife are not 

### considered. Because 

### this

## permit i1nvolves both federal 

### lands and 

## federally listed 

## species,the 

## permit cannot be issued 

### without 

## prior Endangered 

# $pecies Act 

### ("ESA") consultation with the U.S. 

### Fish and Wildlife 

### Service.

The 

## holding ponds and treatment facilities are attractive but 

## deadly sources ofwater for

## migratory birds which

are 

## protected under the 

## Migratory Bird 

## Treaty Act.

## Unfortunately, the 

### present 

## permit contains no 

### information 

## regarding any 

### attempt to 

## comply with 

### either the 

## Endangered Species Act or the 

## Migratorj Bird 

### Treaty Act. 

## Significant criminal

## penalties can be 

## imposed on any person who 

### violates the

## procedural or 

### substantive 

## protections provided by these laws.



### RESPONSE 7: Issuance 

### ofthis

## permit does not 

## trigger a 

### federal action in accordance with NEP A. 

### The 

## permit includes effluent limits to 

### protect water 

## quality standards,both numeric and 

### narrative, for several 

## designated beneficial uses. The stream 

### segment to which the JD-7 and JD-9 mines 

## discharges into is not in the list 

### ofthe USFWS critical 

### habitat 

## designation for 

### federally listed threatened 

### and 

## endangered fish. Issues 

## regarding the 

## migratory bird 

### treaty act and 

### Endangered 

## Species Act are outside the scope 

### ofthis 

## permit.

COMMENT 8:

## Unique conditions 

## require 

## mine-specific and 

### cumulative 

## analyses and 

### additional data to be utilized. Each mine 

## discharges into a 

### separate 

## tributary, each ofwhich has 

## unique characteristics which 

### require separate 

## analysis. In 

### addition, a 

### cumulative 

## analysis is necessary to assess and 

### address the 

## impact~ ofthese 

### and all other uranium mines on 

### the mainstem ofthe 

### Dolores 

### River,most 

### ofwhich are sited on federal 

### ublic lands.As 

## currently written, the 

### WQA does not 

## provide the 

## required information or 

## analysis on 

### which a 

## discharge permit may be based for either mine. 

### Further,the Paradox 

## Valley side ofthe 

## Monogram Mesa 

### is

## distantly differentCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC HEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality ControlDivision Rationale

-

### Page 22, PermitNo. C00036251
than 

### Bull 

### Canyon side as are 

### the mines themselves. Each 

## requires a 

### separate and distinct 

## ~alysis.A 

### revised 

### WQA 

## analysis,with 

## public comment on such 

## analysis, should be 

## prepared that 

### addressesthree 

### components: 

## (1) JD-7 

## discharges into East Paradox Creek 

### and Dolores 

### River, 

## (2) JD-9 

## discharges into Bull 

### Canyon and 

### Dolores 

### River,and 

### (3) cumulative 

## impacts ofthese and other 

## permitted and 

## unpermitted uranium 

### mines on 

### each 

## tributary and on 

### Dolores River main stem.

Because reliable water 

## quality data is 

## lacking to 

### make a 

### definite determination as to 

### how 

## any given water source compares to 

### its intended uses, 

### classifications and 

### standards, no stream or stream 

## segmentiwas 

## judged to be "Not 

## Meeting" Standard,

## using the

## philosophy of

## being innocent until proven 

## guilty. BLM’s 

## questionable 1999 

## "philosophy"aside,this lack ofdata 

### raises substantial concern as to the 

## ability ofthe 

### WQCD to 

## certify based on

a 

### competent record that water 

## quality standards will be met in the affected stream 

### segments.At 

### minimum,the



### WQCD should 

## require additional data 

### from the 

## applicant in order to ensure 

## adequate information.

The 

### WQA does not include or 

## analyze a 

## significant source ofdata in the 

## possession of

### the Colorado 

### Department of

### Public Health and Environment

- the studies

## provided as 

### part ofthe 

## proposed uranium.

### mill, which is located within 

### feet ofthe JD-7 

### mine. Much ofthe information concerns 

### both the East Paradox 

### Creek and Dolores 

### mainstem stream 

### segments and the 

### groundwater which is 

## hydrologically connected to 

### these stream 

### segments. Much ofthis 

### information was 

## produced by consulting firms to 

### characterize East Paradox Creek and the Dolores 

### River mainstem and is 

## being used 

## by the 

### Radiation 

### Management Unit ofthe CDPHE to 

## analyze the 

## proposed Pi on 

## Ridge Uranium 

### Mill,which would be 

### constructed at the toe ofthe JD-7 

### mine.

RESPONSE 8: 

## Although the JD-7and JD-9 mines 

## discharge to 

### different 

### tributaries,

## they are both to 

### strel;llll 

### segment 

### COGULD03a, 

## meaning the Gunnison 

### River 

### Basin, Lower Dolores 

### Sub-basin, Stream

# s~ment 03a.As 

### discussed in Comment and 

### Response 5,the 

## assigned WQBELs were 

### the 

### WQS,and the ost 

## stringent requirements were 

## applied to 

### these facilities. Due to 

### the zero 

### low flow condition ofthe 

### rei 

## eiving stream 

### (no dilution was 

## granted)the most 

## stringent limits

## possible are 

## developed in the 

### WQA 

## (the

## ~ter quality standards 

### themselves). Therefore the 

### conclusion ofthe 

### WQA would 

### be the same 

### regardless ofany

# lother data 

### presented. This is due to the mass balance 

## equation,where ifthere is a zero low 

### flow,the ambient water 

## quality times that

zero low flow results in a zero,

## essentially eliminating consideration ofthe 

### ambient water 

## quality.
Additional 

### data from the 

## applicant is not necessary at 

### this time.All the necessary 

### information needed to 

## correctly complete the 

### WQA,Fact 

### Sheet,and Permit for the JD-7 and JD-9 mines 

### discharges were 

### utilized 

## by the 

### Division. Additional 

### information,

### unpermitted 

## discharges,and 

### proposed discharges will not 

## change the 

### limitations and 

### conditions ofthe 

## permit.

COMMENT 9:Domestic Water 

## Supply

, In addition to 

### the 

## agricultural uses,

## drinking water wells are 

### located between JD-7 and

# thf Dolores River.

RESPONSE 9: Stream 

### segment COGULD03a is 

### classified for 

## aquatic life, recreation and 

## agriculture, but not 

### for water 

## supply. The stream 

### segment for the Dolores 

### River,COGULD02,is 

### also not 

### classified for water 

## supply. Ifthere are 

### active wells 

## being used for water 

## supplies downgradient ofthe 

### mine,

### protection ofthese 

### wells would be under 

### the

## jurisdiction ofthe DRMS as the 

## implementing agency for 

## groundwater protection.

COMMENT 10:



### Several ofthe metals 

### found in 

## groundwater near 

### the mines are not 

### evaluated in the

# wQAi assessment,which limited its metals 

## analysis to: 

### "arsenic,cadmium,chromium,copper,

### iron,lead,manganese,mercury,

### nickel,COLORADO DEPARTMENT OFPUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 23, PermitNo. C00036251 

### selenium, silver and zinc."

### WQA at 19.

## Notably absent from the assessment 

### is

## molybdenum,which continues to pose 

## groundwater contamination 

## problems at the Cotter Mill in 

### Canon 

## City. Also absent 

### from the assessment 

### is



### vanadium, the other 

### main 

### target mineral at the JD-7and JD-9 

### mines besides 

### uranium.

RESPONSE 10: The 

### WQA evaluation 

### looked at all metals 

### for which there was a water 

## quality standard on the 

## receiving stream 

### segment. At the time of

## preparation ofthis 

### WQA, 

## molybdenum standards had not been 

## adopted by the 

### WQCC, and at 

### this time there are no 

### segment 

## specific standards 

### for

## molybdenum in stream 

### segment 

### COGULD03a, hence it was not included in the 

### WQA. The 

### WQCC did 

## adopt agricultural and water 

## supply standards for 

## molybdenum,however neither the 

## receiving stream 

### segment nor the downstream 

### segment are 

### classified for

water 

## supply and therefore the water 

## supply standard will 

## likely not be 

## applied by the 

## WQCC without a 

### change in use 

### classification. For the 

## agricultural standard to be 

## applied to this 

### segment,there are 

## significant considerations that 

### need to take 

## place 

## prior to 

## having the ag based 

## molybdenum standard 

## applied (see footnote 16 to Table 3 of

## Regulation 31).

As 

### discussed in Comment and 

### Response 6,

### groundwater issues are under the

## jurisdiction ofthe DRMS and all 

## groundwater contamination issues should 

### be directed to DRMS.


### There are no 

### numeric surface water 

### standards for vanadium to 

## apply in 

### the 

## discharge permit.Also, the 

### Federal ELG 

### under 40 CFR 

### 440.32,titled Ore 

## Mining and 

## Dressing Point Source 

### Category; 

## Subpart C

- 

### Uranium, Radium and Vanadium Ores 

## subcategory do not include 

### limitations for vanadium.

COMMENT 11: TMDL and 

## 303(d)list 

### WQCD Must 

### Prepare a TMDL for 

### this 

### Segment Prior to 

## Approving Point Source 

## Discharges WQCD cannot 

### issue a

## permit for the 

## discharge from waste rock 

## piles and 

### mine water which 

### constitute 

## aqditional sources and/or increase 

## permitted discharges without first 

## identifying whether the 

## receiving 

# waterbodieslare compromised despite 

## permit-based limits on 

### point-source pollutant 

## discharges and 

## preparing the 

## requir~d TMDL.

### See, e.g., Friends 

## of the Wild Swan v. us. Envtl. Protection 

### Agency, 130 F. 

### Supp. 2d 

### 1199, 1203 

## (b. Mo. 

### 2000) 

## (holding that "untilall necessary TMDLs are 

### established for a

## particular WQLS,the EPA 

### shall 

### not issue any new 

## permits

or increase 

## permitted discharge for any 

## permit under the 

## [NPDES] permitting program")"aff’d in

### part, rev’d in 

### part, remanded

## by, Friends 

## of the 

### Wild Swan v. us. 

### EPA,2003 WL 

### 31751849, 2003 

## U.S.App. LEXIS 15271 

### (9thCir. Mont. 

### 2003).At this time 

## adequate TMDLs have not been 

### established for the 

### Dolores River and its 

### tributaries which are 

### affected 

## by hundreds of

### permitted and 

### unpermitted uranium mines. This 

## problem is 

## compounded by the 

### omission ofany 

## monitoring requirements for iron. The 

### WQA stated: 

### !Determination ofTotal 

### Maximum 

## Daily Loads 

### (TMDLs)

-The Dolores 

### River is on the 

### 303(d)list ofwater 

## quaHty impacted streams 

### for total 

### recoverable iron. 

### Since the 

## discharge is not 

## expected to 

### reach the Dolores 

### River 

## from any of

### the 

### outfalls,

## monitoring for iron will not be 

## required at this time.

### WQA at 11.

### However,

# ther~ is no basis in the 

### WQA to 

### conclude that these 

### mines are not 

## hydrologically connected to 

### the Dolores

# Rive~ or 

### its tributaries. There 

### is also no 

## recognition that iron 

### in 

## groundwater below JD-7 has been 

### measured at 

## 2’f1-mg/L. Hydrological Report at 30-31. 

### Instead, as stated 

### above,the 

## groundwater immediately below the JD-7 

## has been asserted as 

## tributary to the 

### Dolores,

## providing a 

### direct connection for iron to 

### reach the Dolores 

### River. 

### Further,

## although the studies made some

## predictions on the 

### time for 

### the water to reach the Dolores 

### River, the 

## cfllculations were 

### based 

## only on 

## porosity and 

## permeability calculation, it 

## explicitly omitted any 

### calculation

# oftrav,.el time based on the 

### extensive fracture 

### system which characterizes the 

## geology ofthis 

## region.

The 

## impacted stream 

### segments for this

## permit have been included on the 

### "303(d)list of

### water 

## quality impacted streams for total recoverable iron."

### WQA at 11.

### However,iron 

## discharges have not 

## receiyed any 

### analysis in the 

### WQA.

### Importantly,iron is not on the list of

## monitoring constituents.

### Yet,

## just downgradient from 

### the 

### JD-7,the 

## "highest iron 

### concentration from a

## monitoring or

## production well was 24

## mg/L"whereas the 

### groundwaterCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

-

### Page 24, PermitNo. C00036251


### standard for 

### iron was 

## reported as 0.3 

### mg/L.

## Hydrological Report13 at 30-31.Both 

### the 

## WQA 

## analysis and the 

## permit must 

## provide information,

## analysis,and the necessary 

### controls on 

### iron 

## discharges to ensure 

## compliance

with water 

## quality standards.

RESPONSE 11:

Stream 

### segment COGULD03a is not listed on the 

### Colorado’s 

## 303(d)list ofwater 

## quality 

## impacted streams,and 

### this list was 

## just updated as 

### of

## April 2010. Ifthere are water 

## quality data 

## showing 

## impairrhent of state 

### waters,



## they need to be sent to the Environmental Data Unit ofthe Division. Ifthe 

### segment were 

## 303(d)listed, and a TMDL was to 

### be 

### written, the 

## likely outcome 

### is that the 

### WQS would be 

### granted to all 

## discharges on 

### the 

### segment. The 

## currently proposed numeric effluent limitations for JD-7 and JD-9 

### mines are either 

### the 

### WQS or the more 

## stringent federal 

### ELG, which if

## complied with,will not on 

### its own cause any 

### exceedances ofwater 

## quality standards. When 

### the TMDL for the 

### Dolores River is 

## completed,consideration will 

## likely be 

## given as to whether or not the mines need waste load 

### allocations for iron. 

### However, as seen in the 

## followingparagraph, it is 

## unlikely that these 

## discharges travel 

## directly to the Dolores 

### River.

The Dolores River within stream 

### segment 

### COGULD02,is included on the 

### 303(d)list ofwater 

## quality impacted streams for total 

### recoverable 

### iron;however, as concluded 

### in the 

### WQA and 

### Factsheet, the 

## discharge is not 

## expected to 

### reach the Dolores River. A 

### maximum flow of 0.2 MGD ofwastewater 

### is 

## discharged from the JD-7

WWTF into an 

### unnamed 

## tributary which would then 

### need to travel 

## approximately 12.5 

### miles to 

### the Dolores 

### River. A maximum 

### of0.3 MGD ofwastewater is 

## discharged from the JD-9 WWTF into an unnamed 

## tributary to Fawn 

## Springs,which would then need to travel 

## approximately 10.5 miles to reach 

### the Dolores River. It is very 

## unlikely that the 

## discharge from these mines will make 

### it to the 

### Dolores 

### River,

## flowing over 10 

### miles on a
zero low flow stream.
The 

### groundwater 

## discharges from the mine are under the

## jurisdiction ofDRMS. When a 

## discharge is to 

## groundwater directly in the 

### alluvial material of a 

### river, the 

### Division will 

## typically determine that 

### it is a 

### surface water 

## discharge. Although the 

## groundwater may have been 

### deemed 

## tributary to the 

### Dolores,the 

## discharge is

not in the 

### direct alluvium ofthe Dolores 

### River and therefore the 

## groundwater 

## discharge is considered to be 

## solely a 

### groundwater 

## discharge.

COMMENT 12:

### Radionuclides Because 

### radionuclides are 

### involved with these 

### mines, the 

## disposal ofthe treatment residues poses a 

### serious 

## problem which is not 

### addressed in the 

## permit. The current 

## analysis fails to address 

### this

## problem,which is also a 

### live 

### problem faced at Cotter’s 

### Schwartzwalder mine. The 

## purported plan at the 

## Whirlwind Mine is to 

## dump the treatment residues back 

### into the mine 

## workings. 

## Dumping radioactive treatment wastes 

## b~ck into the mine 

### has

no basis in 

### law,may create additional contamination 

### problems, and cannot be 

## consideredi "best available



## technology"where 

## specialized facilities exist to 

## dispose ofthese 

### radioactive and toxic

# w1stes.
Narrative Standards 

## require minimize levels of

### radionuclides,but are not 

### included in the

## permit. The 

## existing 

## permit applies a uranium 

### standard of30

## micrograms per 

### liter as a 

## discharge limit.

### However,the Water 

## Quality Control Commission 

### recently 

## approved changes to the 

### basic standards for surface water 

## (Regulation 31) 

## adjusting the 

### uranium standard from 30

## micrograms per liter to 16.8 

## micrograms per 

### liter~ While the new 

## Regulation 31 

## changes will not go into 

### effect for a short

## period of a few

### months,the 

# Divi~ion should 

## incorporate the new standard into the 

## permit. Such an inclusion is

## justified under the 

## site,specific circumstances 

## including the direct threat to water 

## supplied by downgradient domestic and 

## agricultural water wells. 

### Further, with 

### respect to 

### the uranium 

## discharge limit, the 

### WQA appears to have an 

## incomplete listing ofthe 

## applicable narrative water 

## quality standards. 

## Specifically,the 

### WQA does not account 

### for the 

### narrative standard set forth 

### in 

## Regulation 31 

### for radionuclides.

## Regulation 31 states: The radioactive 

### materials in 

### surface waters shall beCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 25, PermitNo. C00036251


### maintained at 

### the lowest

## practical level. In no case 

### shall radioactive materials in surface waters 

### be increased 

## by any cause 

### attributable to 

## municipal, industrial, or 

## agricultural practices or 

## discharges to as to 

### exceed the 

## following levels,unless alternative 

## site-specific standards have been 

## adopted pursuant to 

### subsection 

## (4) below:
Radionuclide Standards

Parameter Picocuries per Liter 

### Americium 241 * 0.15 

### Cesium 134 80 Plutonium 

### 239,and 

### 240* 0.15 Radium 226 and 228* 5 

### Strontium 90* 8 Thorium 230 and 232* 60 Tritium 

### 20,000 

## Regulation 31.11 

### (2) 

## (underlineemphasis added). The draft 

## permit documents do not app~ar to take into 

### consideration the 

## applicable narrative standard that "the radioactive materials in 

### surface waters 

### shall be maintained at the 

### lowest

## practical level." The 

### Division should conduct a review ofits 

## analysis and make 

## changes as necessary to account for this 

## requirement,

## including further 

## limiting radioactive constituents such as uranIum.


### RESPONSE 12: 

### The Division does not 

## regulate the 

## disposal of

## sludge from 

### mines,however,the Fact 

### Sheet

## points out 

### that waste 

## sludge removed from the treatment 

### facilities is 

## transported to the Cotter 

## Corporation Canon 

## City uranium 

## milling 

## facility for

## disposal in the 

## tailings impoundments at that location. The Cotter 

## Canyon City Mill 

## Disposal site is a 

### licensed radioactive materials 

## disposal site under 

### the

## jurisdiction ofthe 

### Hazardous Materials and Waste 

### Management Division ofthe 

### Colorado 

## Department ofPublic Health and 

### Envilonment.

The current 

### limitations do take into account all radionuclide 

### parameters from the table shown at 

## Regulation 31.11(2),also at Table A-2 ofthe 

### WQA.Most ofthe 

### radionuclides listed are man-made and not 

### expected to be 

### present at the 

### mine site. Those 

### pollutants of concern 

### that are 

## expected to be seen in the mine 

### discharge are 

## presented in 

### Section V ofthe 

### WQA and addressed in the 

## permit.

COMMENT 13:

## Antidegradation Review is 

## required The 

### WQA asserts that 

## antidegradation review will not be conducted based on 

### determinations 

## regarding Stream 

### Segment COGULD03a 

## (tributary streams)which became effective in 

### 2000,when the 

### uranium 

## industry was in 

### the second 

### decade of

## inactivity. This 

### determination is stale and no 

## longer reflects the 

### circumstances.

### Now, a 

## plan to revive the 

### uranium 

## mining and 

## milling industry exists,which has 

## already presented new 

### and/or increased 

## impacts on the 

## tributary system. Several new 

### mines have been 

## permitted, initial 

## operations conducted, and many mines 

### put on 

## standby status in 

## anticipation of

## approval/construction ofthe 

## proposed Pi on 

## Ridge Mill. The Denison Mill near 

### White Mesa 

### has once 

## again begun 

## processing of

## locally mined ores to 

## supplement its revenue stream 

### from 

## processing and 

## disposing of "alternate feed stocks." The 

### WQA states that "an 

## antidegradation review is 

## required for this 

### segment ifnew or 

### increased 

## impacts are 

## found!to occur."

### WQA 

## Appendix A at 21.

### The increased level 

### of

## mining and 

## milling activity provides both new 

### d increased 

## impacts. In 

### 2000,there were no active uranium mills on these stream 

### segments and 

### the 

## existing mUt site at Slick Rock on the Dolores River had 

## undergone remediation and was 

## placed in 

## long term care status.N mill has ever



## operated on the East Paradox Creek stream 

### segment.A current 

## anti-degradation analysis 

## IS necessary for both stream 

### segments 

## analyzed in the 

### WQA.

## Importantly,the 

### WQA 

## analysis relies on erroneous 

### information toCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICHEALTHAND ENVIRONMENT, Water 

### Quality Control Division Rationale

- 

### Page 26, PermitNo. C00036251 

## forego antidegradation review on 

### the main stem 

### ofthe Dolores 

## (COGULD02). WQA 

## Appendix A at 21 

## Although Stream 

## Segment COGULD03a may 

### have been 

## designated as Use 

### Protected in 

### 2000,the main stem 

### of the Dolores 

### (COGULD02) is not so 

## designated. Id. at 

### 2("COGULD02

- 

## Undesignated"). Therefore,the 

### WQA lacks 

### the necessary 

## antidegradation review. The additional information cited in the 

## previous comments 

## regarding the 

### mill 

## proposal and renewed 

## mining activity establish that new 

### and increased 

## impacts exist which 

## preclude reliance on the December 2000 

### determination. In sum,a 

### full 

## antidegradation review is necessary for

both stream 

### segments.

RESPONSE 13: As 

## explained in Section VII ofthe 

### WQA,because stream 

### segment COGULD03a 

### is 

## designated as Use Protected

no 

## antidegradation review is necessary. In accordance with Comment and 

### Response 11,the 

## discharge is not 

## expected to 

### reach the Dolores River and 

### therefore an AD evaluation on the Dolores is not necessary.


### Abigail Ogbe 03/28/11