My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1985-12-22_HYDROLOGY - M1984049
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Hydrology
>
Minerals
>
M1984049
>
1985-12-22_HYDROLOGY - M1984049
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2022 9:54:54 AM
Creation date
11/20/2007 9:55:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1984049
IBM Index Class Name
Hydrology
Doc Date
12/22/1985
Doc Name
HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION PRIDE OF THE WEST TAILINGS POND
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />and the mill itself as a new source because of the prestart <br />• up modifications in progress. However the same logic should <br />favor the defining of the discharge south of the old pond as <br />an er,isting source, as the reconstruction of the di4;e would <br />constitute the repair of an er.isting facility, not an <br />alteration. Every effort should be made to persuade the <br />State to adopt this position. The resumption of disposal in <br />the old pond should not alter this position, since the <br />permitted e>:isting source would be the seepage pond south of <br />the old pond, not the old pond itself. The reactivated old <br />pond would be included in the new source category and permit <br />for the new pond. <br />A number of operators have obtained "no discharge" permits <br />for new sources where no discharges are allowed other than <br />the excess between precipitation and evaporation, as is the <br />case with new source base and precious metals flotation <br />mills. The "no discharge" permit would allow the <br />intermittent discharge of excess rainfall and run off and <br />also provides a defense against action resulting from a <br />bypass or upset. The discharge allowed under the e>:cess <br />rainfall provision must meet the standards for new source <br />mine drainage as given in Table No.6 but with the more <br />stringent State standards for pH. The annual fee for "no <br />discharge" permit is $500 and monitoring would be required. <br />The monitoring requirements would be specified in the <br />• permit. <br />Table No.S: EPA Effluent Standards for New Source <br />Base and Precious Metal Mine Discharge <br />(1) (2) <br />TSS, mg/1 30.0 20.0 <br />Cu mg/1 0.30 0.15 <br />Zn, 1.5 0.75 <br />Pb, 0.6 0.3 <br />Hg, 0.002 0.001 <br />Cd, 0.10 0.05 <br />pH 6.0 - 9.0 <br />pH (State) 6.5 - 9.0 <br />(1): Maximum for 1 day <br />i2): 30 day average <br />The Clean Water Act and regulations require permitting of <br />storm water discharges far industrial plant areas (Group I), <br />which, in Sultan Mountain Mine's case, would consist of the <br />plant area east of the highway and possibly the repair shop <br />attached to the office on the west side of the road. However <br />because of the complexity of the problem, including the laclz <br />• -19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.