Laserfiche WebLink
PCC 11/92 page 2 <br />TDN# 92-020-370-003,TV 2, was issued to DMG for: <br />1 of 2 -Failure to properly design and certify impoundments. This <br />violation addresses the series of impoundments that serve as sewage ponds and <br />the two sedimentation ponds at the North Decline area that are described as <br />alternate sediment control areas (ASCA). Sewage ponds -these ponds do not <br />have to meet the sedimentation pond regulations but do have to comply with the <br />impoundment regulations. The impoundment regulations require compliance with <br />some of the sedimentation pond regulations by reference. PCC stated that they <br />have construction designs for these ponds but they are not a part of the approved <br />permit. Also, ponds have not been certified because DMG has not applied the <br />impoundment regulations to them. The series consists of an aeration pond and <br />three evaporation ponds. The designs are required to be a part of the approved <br />permit and the ponds will have to be certified. ASCA - as a reference, the situation <br />these ponds are in is the same that arose during the New Elk inspection of 3/8/91. <br />The Ten-Day Letter issued during that inspection was appealed to HO and the TDL <br />was upheld. The two impoundments subject to this TDN are the primary sediment <br />control measures for their respective watersheds and they are sized to contain the <br />25 year, 24 hour event. As in the New Elk case, given the fact that-these are-- ------ -- - <br />impounding structures whose sole purpose is sediment control, these can only be <br />viewed as sedimentation ponds. As such, the sedimentation pond and <br />impoundment regulations apply to these structures. Technical Revision (TR) - 13 <br />contains the designs for these ponds. The designs do not address dewatering, <br />whether by pumping or by spillway. The ponds are not certified. <br />2 of 2 -Failure to contemporaneous reclaim refuse piles. The subject of <br />this TDN are the two coal mine waste areas, CRDA #1 and #2. Only one violation <br />is being written for the conditions of the two piles, however, a number of <br />pertormance standard violations exist. Field abatement of the one violation should <br />result~n the abatement of the problems though. The following is an explanation of <br />the problems with each of the piles: <br />CRDA #1 -This pile has the most problems and is the oldest of the <br />two. The pile is actually a little bit higher than the elevation of the fourth terrace <br />level. PCC stated that the fourth terrace will be installed next. The first three <br />terraces have been installed but there is a problem with the third terrace as <br />discussed below. There has not been any reclamation attempted on any part of <br />the pile. Five performance standard problems exist with this pile. 1) There are two <br />corrugated metal pipes (CMP) installed at the base of the pile to direct runoff to <br />sedimentation pond #6. Neither of these two CMPs are designed or addressed in <br />any way in the approved drainage plan. The approved plans only reflect a ditchline <br />at the bottom of the pile. The CMPs should be removed and the ditchline <br />constructed as approved. 2) The third terrace was improperly graded so that <br />drainage is directed to the east face of the pile. The runoff from this terrace then <br />drains down across the face along a road; a chimney type drain was not <br />constructed. Also, at least half of the top of the pile drains to the face of the pile <br />rather than to the perimeter ditches. Approved construction specifications require <br />