Laserfiche WebLink
August 11, 2014 C- 1981- 012/New Elk Mine LDS <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE - Rule 4.05 <br />Drainage Control 4.05.1, 4.05.2, 4.05.3; 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 />Ponds 1, 7 and 8 were all holding significant amounts of water but not discharging. <br />Pond 4 was holding a small amount of water in the south east corner. <br />Pond 6 had not yet been lined; as stated previously, the pond must be lined before it can be used to hold <br />process water for the wash plant. <br />Pond 7 was very full. As has been discussed previously, the pond should retain the capacity to store the <br />runoff from a 10 year 24 hour event without discharging over the emergency spillway. The permit specifies a staff <br />gage to be installed identifying this level (7337.3 ft). According to table 23 in section 2.05 of the permit, the top of <br />the riser is at 7378.5 ft which means that a minimum of 1.2 ft of the riser must be exposed in order to provide the <br />required capacity. At the time of the inspection, three sets of weepholes were exposed on the primary riser, but the <br />length was difficult to estimate with precision. NECC should plan to discharge the water from the pond (after <br />treatment with an approved flocculant if necessary) and install the gage at the earliest opportunity. Since <br />the Water Quality Control Division have not yet approved the use of a flocculant, and apparently do not intend to <br />do so outside of the discharge permit renewal process, NECC may be forced to consider an alternative to <br />discharging pond 7 - perhaps the water could temporarily be pumped to another pond (8 or 4 would probably make <br />the most sense) to allow maintenance of pond 7. <br />The embankment to pond 4 was very overgrown with willows and other vegetation, to the point where the <br />primary spillway was not accessible for inspection. The vegetation should be cleared from the embankment, <br />particularly around the primary and emergency spillways. The embankments and spillways of the other ponds <br />were in good shape, as were the containments. <br />GENERAL MINE PLAN COMPLIANCE: <br />The following permitting actions are in progress: <br />• TR68 (which is a response to MT6). The proposed decision due date has been extended to August 29, <br />2014, and will likely need to be extended again. The Division is awaiting a response to the adequacy <br />letters of July 22, 2014. <br />• TR70 was submitted on May 27, 2014. The initial adequacy review was sent to NECC on June 27, 2014. <br />The proposed decision due date is August 29, 2014, and will likely need to be extended. <br />• RN6 has been found complete, but can't be reviewed for adequacy until TR68 has been approved <br />PROCESSING WASTE /COAL MINE WASTE PILES — Rule 4.10 and 4.11 <br />Drainage Control; Surface Stabilization; Placement: <br />The conveyor from the wash plant was transporting processing waste to the RDA. A single dump truck <br />was being used to move material around on the pile. The dump truck and the loader were being operated by one <br />person. The material coming off the belt appeared to be quite dry and easy to work with. No problems were <br />observed with the drainage or stability of the pile. <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 1 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1 <br />Page 3 of 14 <br />