Laserfiche WebLink
March 18, 2014 C- 1981- 012/New Elk Mine LDS <br />supports the idea of moving the development waste to the RDA and would be happy to offer any advice NECC <br />could use in order to expedite the necessary permitting. <br />EXPLOSIVES — Rule 4.08 <br />Distance Prohibitions 4.08.4; Warnings 4.08.4; Control of Adverse Effects 4.08.4: <br />The permitting for the storage of chemicals in the old explosives area should be handled through an <br />existing permitting action, (probably TR68). <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE - Rule 4.05 <br />Drainage Control 4.05.1, 4.05.2, 4.053; Siltation Structures 4.05.5, 4.05.6; Discharge Structures 4.05.7, 4.05.10; <br />Diversions 4.05.4, Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; <br />Drainage — Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; Impoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br />The eastern end of the RDA upland diversion was inspected. The ditch appears to have been well <br />constructed and had been shaped in such a way as to give much increased freeboard. A small amount of <br />compaction work remained to be done. (The design of the ditch is the subject of TR69, which is in progress) <br />The project around C41 was complete and the results looked very good. Grades had been set in such a way <br />as to minimize the chance of run -off finding an easy route under the conveyor to pond 8. The erosion from the <br />conveyor junction down the steep slope to pond 8 can now be repaired with less chance of the repair work being <br />washed away by the next rainfall. If the conveyor is put to use again it would be advisable to engineer a structure <br />below the junction to catch the "drips ", but for the time being this is not a high priority. <br />Toward the west end of the site, ditch D27( ?) and the small containment it drains to (containment 2 ?), had <br />both been cleaned. Straw had been lain down on the surface although it wasn't clear whether or not the area had <br />been re- seeded. <br />The earthwork to re -route the channel downstream of culvert C2 so that it drains to the wetland (as shown <br />on Map 13) had been completed and looked excellent. The ditch had been nicely sculpted with a couple of rock <br />check dams included. Again, straw had been lain down, but it was not clear whether or not the disturbed earth had <br />been re- seeded. <br />Ponds 1, 4 and 8 were inspected, with no discharge and no problems observed. <br />Pond 6 had not been lined (and is expected to be until the prep plant is needed again). <br />The water level in Pond 7 had continued to drop slowly, although the primary spillway had not been <br />opened to allow it to discharge. The staff gauge had not yet been installed next to the primary spillway riser, so an <br />accurate water level was difficult to ascertain. The elevated but unknown water level in pond 7 has been an <br />ongoing concern; NECC should pursue the approval of the Water Quality Control Division for the use of <br />their proposed flocculant so that the pond may be discharged as soon as possible. <br />The inlet to the long concrete culvert, C 17, had been cleaned, though the culvert itself had not been <br />flushed. This is not yet an urgent requirement, but it would be advisable to attempt to flush it when conditions <br />allow. <br />Culvert CI I had been restored. <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 6 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 <br />Page 3 of 16 <br />