Laserfiche WebLink
November 15, 2011 C -1981 -010 /Trapper Mine RDZ <br /> <br /> <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 6 <br />Number of Complete Inspe ctions this Fiscal Year: 2 <br /> <br /> Page 3 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />EXCESS SPOIL and DEVELOPMENT WASTE – Rule 4.09 <br /> Placement; Drainage Control; Surface Stabilization: <br /> The Horse Gulch Fill was observed and found to be in compliance with the permit. Gullies were not <br />observed on the fill, and the slope contains significant vegetation. Some small rills were observed; the slope <br />should be continually monitored for problems. <br /> <br />EXPLOSIVES – Rule 4.08 <br /> Distance Prohibitions 4.08.4; Warnings 4 .08.4; Control of Adverse Effects 4.08.4: <br /> One blast was observed during the inspection. On November 15, a parting shot was detonated in K Dip <br />Pit. Safety features were in place, including traffic control, radio communication, and sirens. <br /> <br />All observe d blasting activities were at least 500 feet from the East Panel Ready Line, based on visual observation <br />and a discussion in the office with TMI employees. <br /> <br /> <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE - Rule 4.05 <br /> Drainage Control 4.05.1, 4.05.2, 4.05.3; Siltation Structures 4 .05.5, 4.05.6; Discharge Structures 4.05.7, <br />4.05.10; Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring <br />4.05.13; Drainage – Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; Impoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zone s 4.05.18: <br /> Within the East A Pit, the evaporator (which has been used in 2011 to reduce the amount of water in the <br />pond) was not operating due to a mechanical problem. The water level was several feet below the low point in the <br />pit wall at the north end . A water truck was being loaded during the inspection. <br /> <br />In the pit below the Ash Pit (currently being used to hold water for water trucks), the water level was well below <br />the discharge elevation. <br /> <br />A de -watering well pump was being replaced by a contrac tor. <br /> <br />Nine ponds were inspected. This includes several that were discharging: the Industrial Waste Pond, Middle Flume <br />#3, East Pyeatt #3, No Name #2, No Name #5R, and Johnson #10R. For all ponds that were discharging the water <br />was clear and appeared fr ee of pollutants. Graham Roberts performed weekly monitoring at the CDPS points that <br />were discharging (all of the above except the Industrial Waste Pond and No Name #2). <br /> <br />Also inspected were Oak #1 pond, Oak #2 pond, and Impoundment H. There was no disch arge from these three <br />ponds. <br /> <br />No serious problems were identified with any of the pond embankments, spillways, or banks. However, the <br />following maintenance items were identified during the inspection: <br />• The flume below Oak Gulch #2 is blocked by large branches. <br />• A badger hole was seen on East Pyeatt #3 embankment. <br />• The flume at No Name #5 is slightly obstructed by grass.