INSPEC22333

• Permit No: C1981021
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Name: MINE SITE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 4/27/1990
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

INSPECTION REPORT • ~e 2
proposed by the operator
my understanding that the
confirmation was received
is writing. The HLRD did
that the .terrace proposal
treatment facility".
could be considered as such. It is
request vas reviewed and verbal
from the Solicitor but ii is not
convey to the operator in writing
could be considered as an "other
The second problem the HLRD faced for approval of the
proposal vas the use of "other treatment facilities" as
drainage control. The requirement for effluent from the
affected area to meet discharge parameter requirements
before leaving the permit area. To address the
. problem, the operator conducted several studies,
Including Sedimoat II and SEDCAD +, of the proposed effluent
from a disturbed area such as this following reclamation
with the terraces as designed. In doing eo, the emperical
prediction modeling revealed that discharges from the permit
area, if they occurred, would meet the current effluent
standards. Consequently, with the model that vas designed
terraces were built for drainage control.
The fault with this approval ae such lies with the fact that
the state did not use the correct regulatory approach for
reviewing the definition of "other treatment facilities".
Under their regulations at that time, July of '67, if they
did not have a definition of these structures per ae, they
were required to refer to the Federal Permanent Program
Standards. The treatment facility, terrraces ae described in
the plan and built on the reclaimed area, is not approvable
under that definition. By law they are to use the
definition ae indicated in 30 CFR 816.46 of the Federal
Regulations. It is referred to specifically Sn sections
(a)(3) of the above mentioned regulation: "other treatment
facilities" means any chemical treatments, such as
flocculation, or mechanical structures, such as clarifiers,
that have a point source discharge and that are utilized to
prevent additional contribution of suspended solids co
streamflov or runoff ouEside the permit area. In addition,
they are referred to in subsection (d) and (e) of that same
regulation, there it gives the operaCOr requirements for the
treatment.facility as well ae an opportunity for a request
for an eaemption for drainage control if certain
demonstrations are presented for review.
In the field, very little runoff vas noted from the
reclaimed area that would indicate discharges off of the
permit. Hy observations regarding that fact are made with
the stipulation that the north facing slopes were coverd
with three to four feet of enov. In addition, the areas
open were covered with less enov this year than the average,
as much as fifty percent less per Hr. Ayers. The ezposed