Laserfiche WebLink
to include: "the identification, direction and distance, in feet, from the nearest blast hole <br />to the nearest dwelling, school, church, or community or institutional building either not <br />located in the permit area or not owned nor leased by the operator", and line item # (11) <br />"the maximum weight of explosives used per 8 millisecond period ". <br />As a result of these discrepancies, the Team provided the operator with an opportunity <br />to supply the missing information by the close of business. Upon return to the mine <br />office, the operator had provided all necessary documentation as requested. <br />In Development Drilling (Rules 4.07.1, 4.07.3, 4.05.5 and 4.13): <br />The Team also evaluated the "in- development" drilling program for compliance with <br />Rule 4.07.1; the general requirements for Sealing Drilled Holes and Underground <br />openings, Rule 4.07.3; Permanent Sealing of drilled holes, Rule 4.13; <br />Contemporaneous Reclamation and Rule 4.05.5; Sediment Control Measures. <br />Prior to beginning our field evaluation, a very thorough review of the TMI's permit, <br />various maps, inspection reports, abandonment reports, and the applicable state rules <br />was conducted. As a result of this preparation, it was understood that DRMS issued a <br />Notice of Violation (NOV) (CV- 2014 -006) on August 18, 2014. Coincidentally, this NOV <br />happened to address the very topic this evaluation was intended to cover. The Team <br />inspected a total of 19 drill pads that ranged from years 2010 to 2014. Of the 19 drill <br />pads inspected, 6 of them were developed in 2014. NOTE: A conversation with the <br />DRMS inspector provided clarification as to how the August 18, 2014 NOV should be <br />interpreted. For example, during the DRMS inspection, they noticed that the operator <br />had several drill pad locations that were not constructed in accordance to the specified <br />rules. Some of those locations were constructed in years other than 2014, some had <br />just recently been constructed, and some were underway at the time of the DRMS <br />inspection. In summary, the violations consisted of a failure to mark/salvage topsoil <br />piles and a failure to control surface water runoff associated with the drilling into a "pit ", <br />as required by the rules. This is unique in the fact that most violations are accompanied <br />with a time frame to mitigate the issue. However, in this example, there really is no <br />mitigation as the damage has already been done and cannot be reversed. In the <br />instances where the operator had not yet completed the development of certain 2014 <br />drill pads, DRMS acted quickly to ensure the operator mitigated those violations in a <br />timely manner. The Team was able to verify that the operator abated those violations <br />as required by DRMS during our inspection. Therefore, it is understood that the NOV <br />DRMS issued is intended to encompass all years up to the 2014 drill pad development. <br />It is also understood that moving forward; the operator is clear on what is required in <br />regards to the development of future drill pad locations. OSMRE is satisfied with the <br />Divisions' approach to ensure compliance is achieved. <br />Reclamation has been completed as required for drill sites ranging between the years <br />2010 and 2012. However, the operator will need to ensure that reclamation has been <br />completed where mining is not imminent within two years. This would include a number <br />of the 2013 drill site locations. <br />2 <br />