Laserfiche WebLink
.- •~ <br />~^ <br />`~ <br />Description of the Violation <br />Mt. Gunnison No. 1 Mine <br />On February 16, 1983, MLRD conducted an inspection of the ~~It. Gunnison <br />No. 1 Mine. Robert Liddle was the inspector. Craig Hanson, Mine <br />engineer, accompanied the inspector, since Robert Bowman, the <br />Environmental Coordinator, was not available. The inspection revealed <br />the following problems with the drainage control system: <br />1. A small portion of the runoff from the breaker building area <br />flows easterly into the emergency spillway channel of pond MB #l. A berm <br />or ditch should be placed along the channel's perimeter in this area so <br />that affected drainage is controlled. <br />2. The culvert outlet at Station 46+35 (adjacent to refuse pile) <br />was obstructed. This culvert should be cleared. <br />3. Runoff from a portion of the breaker building area, FW #1 pond <br />outslopes and adjacent topsoil stockpile was designed to flow along the <br />access road ditch to across-over culvert and eventually to pond t46 #2. <br />The cross-over culvert was clogged. This resulted in water breaching the <br />ditch and flowing over the road outslope north toward the river. The <br />culvert needed to be cleared to allow the water to flow to pond MB #2. <br />Any resultant rilling and gullying would need to be evaluated this spring <br />when snow cover is gone. <br />Problem No. 3 presented an immediate concern because significant runoff <br />from snowmelt was occurring and this runoff was not reaching the <br />sedimentation pond. Mr. Hanson was informed that immediate action would <br />be needed to correct this problem and that enforcement action may be <br />taken. At Mr. Hanson's request, no action was taken until several hours <br />later (approximately 3:00 p.m.), when Mr. Bowman returned. <br />When Mr. Bowman returned, the State inspector explained the problems <br />identified earlier. Mr. Bowman said immediate action would be taken to <br />correct the problems. It was agreed that the problems would be inspected <br />again the following day (February l7, 1983). <br />The site was reinspected the following day (February 11, 1983) and all <br />three problems were satisfactorily corrected. Because the immediate <br />concerns were resolved, the Division did not issue the Notice of <br />Violation in the field. Instead, the N.O.V. was issued from the Denver <br />office on March 4, 1983 (the date the operator received the Notice from <br />the mail). <br />