My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989-06-01_ENFORCEMENT - M1977378
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977378
>
1989-06-01_ENFORCEMENT - M1977378
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2021 9:42:21 AM
Creation date
9/7/2012 11:47:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977378
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
6/1/1989
Doc Name
Notice of Violation and Cease and Desist Order dated May 18, 1989
From
San Juan County Mining Venture
To
CDPHE-WQCD
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.
/
5
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
Mr . J . David holm, Director <br /> Water Quality Control. Division <br /> May 30 , 1989. <br /> Page 2 <br /> chemical treatment required to bring the more toxic parameter <br /> (zinc) into compliance. Changes in the system or reagent usage <br /> can be seen in trends on the graphs . After the reagent feed <br /> system became operational in January of 1988 , any major <br /> improvement in removing zinc from the discharge resulted in a <br /> corresponding increase in TSS (because of heavier demands on the <br /> system due to precipitates) until the increased loading could be <br /> compensated for . The system is now in this stage, and zinc <br /> quality in the discharge is being met . With some planned <br /> improvements to the settling ponds , the final step toward <br /> continued compliance for TSS and zinc should be achieved . <br /> Several. factors have attributed to the relatively long time it <br /> has taken to bring the discharge toward final compliance . These <br /> factors are listed below : <br /> ( 1 ) The long turnaround time for sample results from commercial. <br /> labs has slowed progress toward compliance. In order to <br /> gauge the efforts of treatment changes , we have had to wait <br /> from 3 to 6 weeks . This problem was solved by contracting a <br /> portion of our analysis work to a lab with a quick <br /> turnaround , although this solution brought to light another <br /> problem explained in Item 2 . <br /> (2 ) Two months of progress was lost due to inconsistent analysis <br /> received from two commercial labs . Although we never <br /> pinpointed the problem, we are now sure that the labs <br /> involved have a viable quality assurance program. <br /> (3 ) 12esignation of a key employee resulted in the loss of <br /> valuable knowledge and experience, causing delays in <br /> treatment progress while other employees "reinvented the <br /> w1we l " . The possibility of this happening aga.in is very <br /> slim because of a program of employee cross-training and <br /> employee awareness that was adopted . <br /> (4 ) The system as a whole does not react as experience or lab <br /> tests suggest it should due to inherent variables in the <br /> system. Time was spent trying to run the system with no <br /> flocculant addition and with addition at rates determined by <br /> testing , with little success . In order to achieve what <br /> success we have had , we have to use 4-6 times the maximum <br /> recommended dosage of flocculant. The variables that cause <br /> this type of phenomenon take time to define and eliminate <br /> due to the experimentation time and lab turnaround time . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.