INSPEC17465 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P,EF•OF:T F'A6E the conr_rete can the corners of the structure are fla4:ing off, the question arose as we discussed repairs, that there may be no need for the monitoring device since there has been na reported discharge. The need far maintenance or complete removal of the stru~=tore was left unanswered, as we discussed it mare, the sizing of the pond itself came in question. The pond was constructed in 1984 and as of yet there is nr_~ recorded discharge thraugli tfie spillways and tkiere is no evidence of a seasonal level cif standinq_ water in the impoundment. The operator questioned the need for the pond sued as it is since there appears to have been no appreciable amr~unts of water accumulating in it from the disturbed area. Along that same line, there was a question about the requirement far a discharge permit for the impr_~undment. Apparently there is enough evidence to warrant d_~ubt in regard to the design size in relationship to the am~~unt of drainage area that flaws inter it. The operator and his son said tFiat they would loc~L;.at the design criteria in Napes that further research would verify our field observation that the pond may be oversized. Mr. Weaver also asked me about the possibility of getting a nc~- discharge discharge permit or dropping their NPDES permit altogether fc~r the facility. I told him that I was aware a'f Nc~-Discharge NPDES permits but did not 4inow criteria far meeting the requirements for the permit ether than nc. discharge. I told him that I thought that the sediment pond has to be designed accordingly ar~d a permit issued with the appropriate stipul atir~ns. As far as the pr,ssi bil ity cif nc~ NPDES Discharge permit, the operator was directed to :all the Colorado Department of HealtFi f~~r guidance but I am nvt aware of that er.emption as being an option. The structure over the mine entrance an the surfa,.e was rebuilt this past summer. Mr, Weaver said that they had t~~ redo it be.=ause the old one ~_aught fire. Tf-~ere was n... damage to the mine but t!-~e awning and support stru~=tore for the sizing, sorting and switching station was destroyed. Pieces of the burned structure were still evident on the mine benches in areas wFiere they st~_~re materials and equipment. Several efforts were made tc~ find the Nu-mine edit where they taL::e ground water samples for a discL~arge p~~int from the mine. fJc~ mine water is disct-~arged from the active portals but instead is ,=olle~=ted in a sump inside the mine that passively discharges tl'~rougFl the old wcrr4;ings to the surface on the north side of mountain that is between the mine and the old edit. Since we were not able to find tFie monitoring station, Mr. Mathews said that he would require the aperat::r tq show him the area sa lie could collect a sample from the sump near the old mine entrance. I have been to the site in the past with another state inspector but it is difficult to fiind because- of the size of tf-ie area and the forest cover. The opening is als~~ collapsed with little evidence of surface disturbance. There was nc. discharge frr,m the sump at the opening at that time nr_,r was there evidence of a flow frr_,m the site that ar_curred prier to my inspection at that time. Since I inspected the site about the same time of year, I did not push to see it again but made an effort tc. find it in the hopes that the discharge point is still rep=ognized as such. Fart of the mine records were available at the mine and others were 4iept at Mr. Weaver's residence. Their mine permit e:;pires May 1.3,