REV102110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f ~ • ~ To clarify, DMG has not "mandated to Mr. Smith the recent road improvements were to be: (1) engineered for structural and drainage integrity and (2) were to be included into the permitted area via a "technical revision" prior to using the access roadway this season". DMG specified two problems related to this matter, listed as Problem Nos. 1 and 2 in DMG's November 12, 1999 inspection report. Problem No. 1 indicated that the existing access road, not within the permit boundary, had been significantly upgraded. The suggested corrective action was for Pathfinder to submit a revision to the permit (by January 14, 2000, subsequently extended to June 16, 2000) that addresses incorporation of the area of disturbance associated with the access road into the permit area. Pathfinder was to obtain DMG approval of the revision within applicable statutory timeframes. Problem No. 2 indicated that the repair to the penstock is within the Pathfinder Pit permit boundary and appears to have created a fill and access road that may be unstable. The suggested corrective action for this problem was for Pathfinder to submit a revision to the permit (by January 14, 2000, subsequently extended to June 16, 20001 that addresses incorporation of either, an adequate engineering demonstration of stability for the reconstructed fill and access road associated with repairs made to the penstock, or measures to be taken to ensure and maintain the stability of these structures. Pathfinder was to obtain DMG approval of the revision within applicable statutory timeframes. DMG's May 25, 2000 inspection report indicated that DMG is uncomfortable with the idea of heavy truck traffic on the access road prior to submittal and evaluation of the engineering study described above. DMG notified Pathfinder, in the May 25, 2000 inspection report, that if DMG finds any haul trucks using the access road between the time that inspection report was received by Pathfinder (June 22, 20001 and when DMG approves a revision to incorporate the access road into the Pathfinder Pit permit, an enforcement action may be taken. Subsequently DMG has terminated Problem No. 1 from the November 12, 1999 inspection report because the portion of the access road that lies outside the permit area is not considered to be for exclusive use of the mining operation and therefore is not required to be within the permit boundary. Problem No. 2 still exists. Pathfinder's failure to comply with the corrective action listed in this problem has resulted in scheduling of the formal public hearing mentioned above. DMG did not mandate anything in this regard and suggested that the problems be corrected through revisions to the permit. Revisions can include amendments or technical revisions to the permit. See Rules 1.1(6) and (49). DMG cannot issue a Cease and Desist Order, but has scheduled this matter before the Board, which does have the authority to find a violation and issue a Cease and Desist Order. Response to July 13, 2000 and July 26, 2000 Requests for Documents • The estimated 20 to 30 gpm flow from a spring at the toe of the fill slope, observed during DMG's May 25, 2000 Pathfinder Pit inspection, was inspected again on July 11, 2000. The flow was estimated at 7-10 gpm from that same spring. • A copy of the July 11, 2000 inspection report was mailed to your attention on July 24, 2000. • Regarding your request that DMG update your files with any recent correspondence DMG has had with Mr. Smith; DMG does not have the staff resources to respond to broad, non-specific requests for documents. If you request a specific document, DMG will copy it for you, at a