Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> , <br /> ME[P SUPPLEMEN [ Page 3 <br /> water from the one and two mines as they were connpcted through the <br /> roc| tunnel . <br /> The question was asked why the State did not issue a violation <br /> requiring the company to build the ponds. They said that the company <br /> has committed to building one of the ponds as a result of the pending <br /> _---~--+ `-� 4 '. r+ ..-_ ` ~..+ ~;_^1.~ ~, 4 ++,. 1 h`' +L,� <br /> MEIR SUPPLEMENT Page 2 <br /> based on the conditions of the permit . <br /> This office issued a Ten Day Notice (TDN) #89-02-244-3 for two <br /> additional violations that were not issued by the State. <br /> One was for the company' s failure to pass disturbed area drainage <br /> off of an active topsoil stockpile through a sediment pond prior to <br /> it going off of the permit . The stockpile is from the new extension <br /> area of the Sutey Processing Waste pile. They began pulling it in <br /> September of lost year and stockpiled it on th[e upstream side of the <br /> clearwater diversion for the area above the waste pile. No effort was <br /> made to contain the drainage off of the pile nor were there plans for <br /> drainage control . The company did put in a culvert across the clear <br /> water diversion for equipment access. <br /> The size of the stockpile was relatively small , two acres or less, <br /> but the fact that it was sitting since September with no drainage <br /> control and abutted the diversion requires that steps for control be <br /> implemented. <br /> There is a grass buffer around the perimeter of the pile that wi ] l <br /> catch some of the runoff, in addition, one side of the pile is butted <br /> up against a ridge. Despite those factors drainage control should <br /> be addressed. <br /> The second violation in the TDN was for their failure to maintain � <br /> drainage off of the surface of rock tunnel waste dump along the top <br /> of the pile and around the southern perimeter . In the narrative <br /> specifications sheet , #5 of 5 for the rock tunnel disposal area <br /> construction dated, July 1994, in section 2. 0 for disposal of waste, <br /> under item 2. 3. 3, it indicates that the surface drainage of the pile <br /> shall be maintained throughout construction by grading the surface to <br /> a minimum slope of 2%. Also the drainage grade requirement is <br /> identified in the "Drainage Plan for Proposed Waste Disposal " sheet # <br /> 2 of 5, dated July 1984. This plan view and cross section is not <br /> that clear about the perimeter drainage of the pile but identifies <br /> the 2% grade on the surface which is also in violation. There is <br /> some reference to a surface water diversion berm but it is not <br /> evident to me as to whether it is for clear water or disturbed area <br /> water . The key is in the statement about the construction and <br /> maintenance of a positive drainage requirement . In this case, the <br /> company pushed snow with rock and waste across the top of the pile <br /> towards the south. It abutted the embankment in several places, <br /> causing water to accumulate and probably encourages infiltration. In <br /> addition to that drainage problem, the State permitted the company by <br /> Technical Revision to pour pond cleanings in an embanked area on the <br /> southern perimeter of the pile. The cleanings are saturated and in <br /> addition the blockage is causing water from the disturbed area <br /> running down the perimeter to stop flowing down the outside of the <br /> pile and is causing it to go into the waste' <br /> �noth�, pr''hl �m wa F i den+ ified can rprning ' ` Y"nnnl d/xop <br />