Laserfiche WebLink
.. ~, ~ • <br />June 14, 1999 <br />4. MCC has already submitted a technical revision addressing modificntions in <br />the Shaft 3 construction and sediment control plm~. MCC did submit the "Sylvester <br />Gulch as-built" revision in December, 1998. This is a revision which the Division <br />understood would be subtitted soon after construction, as part of the "observational <br />approach" to permitting and construction referred to earlier. The revision was not <br />submitted until more than a year after construction of the Shaft 3 site was <br />completed. During the May inspection, OSM inspectors and I attempted to use <br />maps from the recently submitted revision to verify that the sediment control system <br />was in place in the field. At that time, it became apparent that a map(s) in the <br />revision still did not accurately reflect the disturbance or sediment control system. <br />The assumptions of the sedimentology modeling approved in MR-219 were not <br />revised in the recent revision. <br />5. MCC contends that Soil Guard was trot proposed for the Shaf! 3 site. I <br />presume that MCC is referring to text in their permit which discusses the use of <br />straw bales, silt fence and vegetation for sediment control. The discussion of these <br />measures does not mention Soil Guard. However, the sedimentology modeling <br />upon which the SAE approval was granted does specify that disturbed site <br />characteristics assumed in estimating sediment generation include the application of <br />Soil Guard to cut slopes. <br />To summarize my rationale for upholding issuance of this NOV, MCC specified a number of <br />sediment control practices to be used at the Shaft 3 area when asking the Division to consider <br />an exemption from the requirement to pass runoff from the azea through a sediment pond. <br />Nearly two yeazs after construction of that site, a comparison of the permit to the ground still <br />reveals incongruities. Based on a review of the permit files relevant to this site, it is cleaz <br />that the Division was concerned about the effectiveness of proposed sediment control <br />practices and, that careful monitoring and maintenance of those practices would be expected. <br />I have observed less than careful maintenance of those practices over the past nine months. <br />Based on my observations, it is not apparent that all disturbed area runoff from the site is <br />being treated with alternate sediment control measures. Based on conversations in the field <br />with company representatives, there is apparent confusion about what measures are required <br />and where those measures are to be located. Finally, there are a number of deficiencies or <br />contradictions in the approved plan and proposed plans for sediment control, as it relates to <br />what was actually built. Therefore, I believe the Division is justified in citing a failure to <br />comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. <br />WestEIkNOV <br />3 <br />