Laserfiche WebLink
INSPECTION REPORT <br /> Page 2 <br /> lamphouse yard . Recent construction- disturbance on the yard caused <br /> by the installation of the mine water pipeline was not bermed <br /> properly to eliminate runoff from the area . The drainage from the <br /> yard is supposed to be addressed as a small area exemption which is acceptable but that was limited to the vehicular parking. On the day of the inspection, soil and coal fines from the construction were <br /> piled on the yard . In addition, a piece o'f mining equipment, wasW �N <br /> also stored on the outside of the area . Sediment laden water was <br /> flowing off of the area around and through the recent construction i <br /> ]itches caused by earlier erosive forces of past runoff events . <br /> The second part of this violation was written for the discharge of - <br /> water from the french drain on the Sutey Waste pile . I must admit <br /> ghat I have inspected the area during previous oversight inspections y <br /> ind have overlooked this violation . But it was pointed out to e �N 5 i violation that was missed and is now being addressed in this TDN . _ <br /> the french drain was built to carry seep flows occurring under t}ie waste pile away from the fill so it would not saturate the area . 01 <br /> chat drain was not segregated from the infiltration occurring in t}le <br /> -lile so it now receives drainage from the seeps as well as water iri <br /> }re structure itself . The third violation of the TDN was written <br /> -or the failure to monitor groundwater in monitoring well GW-1 . <br /> �ccording to company officials, a bottle was inserted in the well to <br /> >ull a grab sample during their 2nd quarterly monitoring period . The <br /> ,ottle stuck part of the way down the pipe because the <br /> ram movement within the waste d Pipe is beat <br /> pile . The filing ate for that <br /> ivarters monitoring was dated during July, their next quarter <br /> ionitoring record was dated 10/24/89 . They did have some field <br /> ample results for the quarters so they are still able to gather <br /> nformation in the field but the grab sample was not possible due to <br /> he deformed structure . <br /> The fourth violation of this TDN was written for. the failure to <br /> -ontrol and minimize water pollution from their surface coal mining 1 <br /> Aerations . Two unlined eroded channels were noted on the outslope <br /> f the glory }sole pad that drained into the floc 'W <br /> 'r . Thompson what had caused the erosion. He saipvthatnd rea � I asked <br /> rainage was from t}�e pad itself but most Part of the p0� <br /> verflowing mine water tank on the u end it was coming from asked lip <br /> him <br /> 'hy it was overflowing, he responded pbyr saying fthat they did not have <br /> shutoff float valve on the structure . Water from that as well as <br /> he yard runoff itself, flowed out over the outslope of the yard and <br /> as not contained in a drop structure from there, it flows out across <br /> lie dryer pad and eventually ends up in t}ie 001 pond treatment <br /> ystem. Steps should be taken to minimize the runoff through the <br /> ottom yard because of the fines that are picked up by the water and <br /> lie nick points should armoured to reduce the contribution of solids <br /> o flow going through the pond system. <br /> The fifth violation of the TDN was written for the failure to <br /> iveOrt surface runoff from the outslope of tine fill to properly <br /> esigned channels on the rock tunnel dump. Ponding areas were note d <br /> n two places on the dump. The first area was created by trash W <br /> -ored in 'the winter area . The road into the dumping area is bermed ( '~ <br /> �causeA trash iwas piled <br /> ent tin}�that area thus <br /> ttom end <br /> fcrthe road was not open <br /> an infiltrati <br /> Dne on the face of the fill . The second area tongtile fill, is"+omore <br /> �,�. $ <br />