Laserfiche WebLink
. h <br /> Notice #2 was written for a disturbed area water system inlet on the <br /> #1 mine that was not designed to properly direct flows into the <br /> sediment control system. Runoff from the disturbed area is carried in <br /> a ditch along the haulroad to the culvert. Undisturbed area drainage <br /> is collected below the inlet of the culvert in the same ditch. A berm <br /> is usually in place in the ditch just below the culvert opening to <br /> direct disturbed area drainage into the inlet and to be channeled to a <br /> sediment pond. On the day of the inspection, the berm had been graded <br /> out so the disturbed area drainage was carried around the culvert into <br /> the undisturbed area drainage channel. A headwall needs to be built <br /> for the culvert so drainage is not allowed to bypass the inlet to the <br /> sediment control system. <br /> Notice #3 was written for the companys ' failure to install, operate <br /> and maintain facilities to control runoff from the disturbed area. <br /> The areas cited, were the diesel fuel tank enclosure and the oil shack <br /> on the #2 mine. The diesel tank is standing on a concrete slab with <br /> sides on it to catch spills. This tub like structure had a hole in <br /> it. If a spill had occurred, it would have flowed out of the tub into <br /> an undisturbed area drainage. The oil shack cited in this notice was <br /> a 10 by 12 foot steel building on a cement floor that was used for <br /> storing fifty gallon drums and five gallon can of oil and hydralic <br /> fluid. Spills on the inside of the building had leaked out and onto <br /> the outslope of the mine pad. <br /> Notice #4 was written for the failure to use the best technology <br /> available to control runoff from an access road crossing on Dutch <br /> Creek, a perennial stream. The access road goes between the prepara- <br /> tion plant and the refuse pile for the plant. This road is used for <br /> light truck, dozer and front end loader access to and from the refuse <br /> pile. The crossing on the creek is a low water bridge, that has been <br /> designed to allow storm flows to overtop the bridge. Runoff is not a <br /> problem on the portion of the access road that goes from the prepara- <br /> tion plant to the bridge. However, the next section, which is from <br /> the bridge to the refuse pile does have drainage problems . It was the <br /> portion cited in the ten-day notice. This portion of the road crests <br /> before it reaches the refuse pile. The drainage from the crest in the <br /> road back to the bridge which is about 400 yards on a 4 to 5 percent <br /> slope, is not adequately controlled. The company has not used the <br /> best technology available to prevent the additional contributions of <br /> suspended solids to streamflow. <br /> Notice #5 was written for the failure to place and store non-coal <br /> wastes in a controlled manner in a designated area. Approximately 12 <br /> cubic feet of non-coal waste, which consisted of crushed five gallon <br /> cans, paper and other assorted material, was dumped in an undisturbed <br /> water drainage on the #2 mine pad. The second part of the notice was <br /> written for several fifty gallon barrels and five gallon cans stored <br /> in the oil shed on the closed #4 mine pad in an area that was identi- <br /> fied by the State as a small area drainage exemption. The area has no <br /> provisions to contain a possible spill and prevent the runoff from <br /> eventually entering stream flow. <br /> -2- <br />