Laserfiche WebLink
III, COMMENTS-COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations <br />made during the inspection. Comments in Section IV describe any enforcement actions <br />taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />Notes: The bridges are in disrepair. A reduced level of maintenance, sufficient for foot <br />traffic, has been approved. The plugged emergency spillway (one) from T-2 has <br />been approved as abandoned in place. <br />There are no items of interest from previous inspections. <br />A number of pictures were taken during this inspection and are on file at the Division. <br />Copies of the photographs were mailed to the Operator along with this inspection <br />report. <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE The lower terrace at the Coal Loadout was under irrigation. <br />There was water discharge from the mine drains into the long pond, which then <br />flowed into Treatment Ponds 1 and 2. The water treatment system was in proper <br />operation. Water was being pumped by the landowner from Pond 2 to an off-site <br />stock tank. There were a number of leaks in this pipe. One of the larger leaks was <br />within the zone of collection of the facilities area perimeter ditch, and flow was <br />discharging into Pond 9. Inflow to Pond 9 from the leak in the pipe was estimated at 1 <br />cup/5 seconds (0.75 gallon per minute). A picture was taken of this leak and flow <br />(Photograph 25-O1-16-196g), There was approximately one foot of water in the pond. <br />The sulfur-water seep between Portals 2 and 3 was damp. There was no other surtace <br />water on the site. The discharge at CPDES point 001 was 5 gallons per 18 seconds <br />(16.7 gallons per minute, 0.037 cubic feet per second). This was less than the inflow <br />into Pond B by the unknown quantity of water being drawn from the pond by the <br />pump. <br />BACKFILL & GRADING (and DEMOLITION) The remnant bases of the four flumes and <br />the upper bridge across North Thompson Creek (the Stoney Ridge fan shall road <br />bridge) were inspected and measured in order to develop estimates for their <br />removal. <br />PROCESSING WASTE The refuse pile was inspected and found to be in good shape. <br />SUPPORT FACILITIES The embankment of Ditch A (Drawing D-4-8) had been beaten <br />down by cattle, and requires reconditioning in a number of places. The design profile <br />of this ditch N ditch, 0.9 feet deep and 2.7 feet across the top) is on page 1 of 1 of <br />the Addendum to Appendix 4-B, and was designed to pass 2.02 cubic feet per <br />second (cfs). The applicant has demonstrated that this ditch is no longer required as <br />a sediment control feature, but proposes to retain (permanent) and use this ditch to <br />convey discharges from Pond 2 or Pond 9 to the (permanent) Refuse Pile Sediment <br />Pond. This flow is anticipated to range up to 0.1 cfs (maximum measured discharge <br />from Pond B for the past 3 years). Sediment has filled the sediment trap at the inlet to <br />Culvert C-6 (Drawing D-4-8) again, and sediment has collected in and partially <br />C-81-025, Page 3 of _6_ Pages, (date) _26 October 2001 (initials) ~^~ <br />