INSPEC22060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action, • The small culvert at the junction of the Conveyor access road and the road into Transfer #2 needed cleaning, and a small quantity (several shovels full) ofcoaly material spilled at the side of the road needs to be cleaned up. Hvdroloeic Balance NOV CV-2002-004 RefuseArea Sediment Pond 2/3 was observed to be dischazging when inspected at 10:15 am, on 3/26, despite the fact that water level in the middle cell of the pond was approximately 6 feet below the top of the primary spillway riser. Water could be heazd draining through the spillway culvert at the base of the riser, and discharge of approximately ] 0 to 15gpm was estimated. A grab sample was obtained from the outflow channel at approximately 10:45 am, at a location approximately I S feet below the spillway culvert. Operator obtained samples at the same time and location. The dischazge water had a slightly cloudy appearance. Operator Feld tested discharge for pH and conductivity (7.75 and 918um, respectively). Mine personnel began pouring baggedbentonite azound the base of the riser immediately after we had collected the dischazge samples, to seal off the discharge pipe and the apparent source of the leak. There was no visual indication as to where the leak was located, but the assumption was that leakage was occurring at a seam along the discharge pipe, in the vicinity of the base of the riser. At 1:30pm the location was re-checked. Workers were still placingbentonite and packing it in place, but had located fire apparent location of the leak, and within a short time after ow arrival back at the site, the leakage had ceased. The location was re-checked once again at 3:50 p.m., and there was no dischazge. The operator was cited for "Failwe to maintain sediment pond primary spillway as necessary to enswe function in accordance with approved design. Speci£cally, leakage of pond water into.buried culvert at base of primary spillway riser allowed for dischazge flow estimated at 10-15gpm:' Permit text on page IV-39, and spillway desigtt information on Maps 80A and 80B describe and depict the fact that the primary spillway was designed to dischazge only by water spilling over the top of the riser. As such, leakage into the discharge pipe in the vicinity of the base of the riser is not in accordance with design, and represents inadequate containment of inflow, which couldpotentially result in discharge of water that does not meet applicable standazds. At the time of the inspection when dischazge was initially observed, there was a trickle of inflow into Pond 2/3 via the west inlet ditch, from remnant melting snow and recently thawed material along the north slope of the refuse pile. As such, the applicable sediment dischazge standard would have beensettieable solids. I delivered the water samp]e to Grand Junction Labs at approximately 10:15 am, 3/28/02, and requested analyses for both settleable solids and total suspended solids. Lab report dated 4/3/02 indicated total suspended solids level of 22 mg11, and settleable solids level of "<1 mlll". In that the applicable standazd for settleable solids is 0.5 m]/1, I thought the reported value may have been erroneous. I contacted lab director Brian Bauer on 4(8/02 and he verified that this was the case, and stated that the value should have been reported as "<0.1 mUl. He said the report would be corrected and re-issued. Analyses submitted by the operator, performed by ACZ Laboratories, Inc., indicated total suspended level of 10 mg/1, and settleable solids of <0.1 mg/1. The values for both pazameters as reported by both labs (as corrected for settleable solids per discussion with Brian Bauer), aze well below the pertinent dischazge standards.