My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-01-29_INSPECTION - C1981014
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2015-01-29_INSPECTION - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:56:59 PM
Creation date
1/30/2015 7:23:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
1/29/2015
Doc Name
Inspection Report
From
DRMS
To
Energy Fuels Coal, Inc
Inspection Date
1/27/2015
Email Name
RDZ
MPB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
January 27, 2015 C- 1981 - 014 /Southfield Mine RDZ <br />105deg0VTV). This should be addressed by EFCI. <br />Prior to the field survey of drill holes, Mr. Weaver developed a list of holes to be surveyed; this list included <br />latitude and longitude coordinates, which he determined from Map 12 of the PAP and an algorithm to convert the <br />values from the Southfield coordinate system. The inventory of drill holes was conducted during both days of the <br />inspection. The process for each hole entailed the following steps: <br />• Use GPS to navigate to the site (using Al Weaver's coordinates). <br />• Check the site for evidence of an existing hole /casing, past drilling, and /or past reclamation. This entailed <br />a walk of the surrounding half -acre of land (approximately a circle with 83 -foot radius). <br />• Determine a more accurate location of the hole (if necessary) using Dr. Corley's GPS system. <br />• Place a piece of galvanized conduit (approximately 1 -inch diameter) on the site as a marker. <br />• Note the status of hole — open or sealed, reclaimed or not. <br />On January 27th, 21 holes were inspected and six were found to not be sealed. On January 28th, 17 holes were <br />inspected and one was found to not be sealed. All holes were marked by Mr. Weaver (with exceptions at the RDA) <br />at the location that best estimates the location of the hole. EFCI will update Map 12 as appropriate. A summary of <br />the results is shown in the attachment to this report. <br />At most of the sites where no hole or casing was seen, there was little evidence of drilling (such as cuttings or old <br />trash), sealing (concrete or bentonite), or disturbance. Some sites (SR -44, SR44A) should be revisited due to <br />snow conditions. At some of the sites, Dr. Corley noted reclamation grasses (e.g., side oats grama) in the vicinity <br />of the documented location. At each of the sites, there appeared to be access for a drill rig from a road or track and <br />enough open space for a drilling operation (although small trees or shrubs have grown in recent years at some <br />sites). <br />The primary GPS system used in the survey was the one owned by Dr. Corley. He uses a base station on his ranch <br />in conjunction with a Leica GS15 receiver with antenna. Dr. Corley has extensive experience using GPS <br />equipment for surveying on his property and some experience at other locations. In addition, Mr. Weaver carried <br />a small hand help unit for navigation. <br />Rob Zuber used his Trimble GPS Yuma unit to check the latitude and longitude of the locations that Mr. Weaver <br />had on his list of holes. At all but one of the sites, the Yuma coordinates at the documented locations of the holes <br />matched Mr. Weaver's coordinates within 1 /10000 of a degree (approximately 36 feet), and many times were <br />within 1 /100000 of a degree. The one site where the Yuma did not confirm the location, SR -36, is under the RDA <br />(and therefore a marker was not placed at the location at this time); however, Dr. Corley's system confirmed the <br />location. <br />OFFSITE SUPPORT FACILIITES - Rule 4.04,4.28: <br />At the loadout, reclamation of Ponds L -1 and L -2 was inspected. No erosion was seen. Silt fence at the <br />discharge point for the Pond L2 area remains stable. The silt fence at the Pond L1 looks very good, but the wire <br />fence at the northeast corner is not intact. No sediment deposition was observed in the adjacent areas below these <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 5 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 2 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.