INSPEC34946 - 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. Aerial Photo #0220 taken 7/1 /04 shows mining disturbance in the 016 watershed, as well as Pond 016A, and Pond 016 directly below. A Pond 016 design revision was also approved within PR-3, in May 2003. The design revision included SEDCAD documentation in Attachment 13-58, Appendix 1, and design drawing map Exhibit 13-g6 (certification date 4/22/03). The primary change approved in the design revision involved reducing the elevation of the principal spillway riser by 2.5 feet. Apparently, this design change was overlooked, and did not get implemented. During the mid-term permit review in late 2003, the Division identified this apparent discrepancy, and brought it to the operator's attention, in review Item #24, of the December 22, 2003 Mid-term Review Letter.. The review item stated: A Pond 16 design revision was submitted in PR-3, Exhibit 13-gB. The approved version was certified 4/22/03. -There are several design changes on the "Design Revision", as compared to the As-Built" dated 9/26/01. Among these changes are modified Emergency Spillway Schedule, Principal Spillway 2.5 feet lower than As-Bui/t" on the Stage Capacity Chart and Principal Spillway Detail drawing, and de-watering orifice specified on ':4s-Built" is not shown on design revision. Please confirm whether these design modifications have been completed. if so, please provide a revised construction certification and ':4s-Built° if the modifications have not been comp/eted, please explain why. The mid-term letter requested a formal response submittal package to address the 45 adequacy issues, by the end of February 2004. However several response extensions were subsequently requested and granted. The Division ultimately received the mid-term response technical revision on December 1, 2004 Metter dated November 30, 2004). SCC's response to Item 24 indicated that "elimination of the 3-inch dewatering orifice" had been completed, but that the "2.5-foot decrease in the principal spillway elevation has not been completed". The comment further stated that SCC was continuing to investigate the Pond 016/016A system to address the concerns, and that "SCC will address the Division's comments...as soon as the evaluation has been completed". The Division forwarded a TR-50 initial adequacy review letter to SCC on January 25, 2005. The Division requested, with respect tc Item 24, that the operator "amend the application [to demonstrate that the current pond spillway configuration was adequate] or commit to implementation of approved modifications (if shown to be warranted) as soon as possible". The letter requested that SCC respond to the concerns within 30 days of receipt. The Division prepared afollow-up letter on February 23, 2005, specific to the Item 24 issue, following further investigation into the issue by Division staff and discussion between Division and SCC staff. In that letter, the Division summarized the conflicting information provided, including erroneous information regarding the reduced principal spillway elevation that had been incorporated into recent SEDCAD documentation associated with Pond 016A certification. The Division noted that "...we have two as-built reports with conflicting information and a design revision that apparently was never fully implemented." The Division further stated: Based on our review of this matter we have concluded that enforcement action is warranted, unless the issue is promptly resolved. P/ease provide certified as-built documentation by Meich 9, 2005, demonstrating that Pond 016 was constructed in compliance with the approved plan, or demonstrating that the existing two pond system as constructed complies with all applicable performance standards. 4