My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1995-08-11_REVISION - M1977493 (12)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977493
>
1995-08-11_REVISION - M1977493 (12)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:27:01 PM
Creation date
9/14/2010 12:30:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977493
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
8/11/1995
Doc Name
EPP-IV
From
CMC
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR7
Email Name
ACS
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.
/
58
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
7 <br /> providing adequate storage capacity to contain any runoff in the spring. As previously discussed, the flow <br /> rate calculations were off by a factor of about 2%, and so by 1980, the Company was into its second <br /> NPDES permit and in all honesty, things had not changed an appreciable amount from when there was no <br /> permit except that a lot of money has been spent and the results were generally unsatisfactory to <br /> everyone. From the Company's viewpoint, not only were treatment costs excessive, but the mode of <br /> operation had not changed. The State and EPA, although sympathetic over the cost situation, were clearly <br /> upset that snowmelt bypasses were still required. The Company was reluctant to commit to expansion of <br /> the WWTP due to the operational problems that were beginning to become evident. <br /> Many options were considered. First was a reanalysis of pollution prevention. In particular, how <br /> could the amount of water that was becoming contaminated be minimized. It should be remembered the <br /> mine was more than fifty years old and encompassed an historic mining district when this program began. <br /> Pollution prevention was not simple at this site and the number of sources providing contamination were <br /> significant. These included underground mine dewatering, runoff and seepage from waste rock dumps, <br /> seepages from tailing dams and process water reclaim reservoirs, and drainage from old inactive mines that <br /> we had taken into our system in the 1960's. Finally, these sources were spread throughout a five square <br /> mile area. <br /> The feasibility of constructing numerous small treatment facilities was considered. This was <br /> unattractive due to the complexity of the existing WWTP and the fact that multiple WWTP's would almost <br /> certainly require a significant increase in manpower. Efforts were then focused on how best to use the <br /> existing WWTP and provide more available storage for runoff. This would entail the construction of <br /> storage reservoirs and pump stations, and was prohibitively expensive. <br /> With this information in hand, discussions were begun with the State and the EPA in an attempt to <br /> 0 work out a solution. The mine was operating at full capacity, and the next NPDES permit renewal <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.