My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-06-29_INSPECTION - C1982057
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Coal
>
C1982057
>
2015-06-29_INSPECTION - C1982057
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:08:44 PM
Creation date
6/29/2015 10:58:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
6/29/2015
Doc Name
Inspection Report
From
DRMS
To
Peabody Energy
Inspection Date
6/23/2015
Email Name
LDS
JHB
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.
/
17
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
June 23, 2015 C-1982-057/Seneca II -W Mine LDS <br />were not in use at the time of the inspection. In some cases the flumes were full of sediment and vegetation and <br />buckets were lying near to the primary spillway outlets suggesting that a bucket and stopwatch method was being <br />used instead. Although this can be a satisfactory method of measuring the discharge rate, at times of high flow it is <br />not appropriate. Mr Jones was under the impression that SCC had scheduled flume maintenance for later in the <br />summer. Flumes should be made fit for purpose and put to use. <br />Alluvial wells whal6al-4 could not be definitively located, but it appeared as though the well casings had <br />been cut off at ground level and marked with fence posts. Three of these wells are reportedly abandoned, but <br />monitoring of 6a2 has been suspended and is supposed to be resumed prior to the termination of water monitoring. <br />SCC should work with the landowner to ensure that these wells have been properly abandoned and are <br />available for inspection. If wha16a2 cannot be monitored in the future SCC should plan to either replace it, <br />or demonstrate why replacement is not necessary and update the permit with a technical revision. <br />Table 1: Copy of GPS point attribute table <br />PointlD <br />OUD <br />Type <br />Status <br />Comments <br />Flooded due to beaver dam, sw monitored <br />wsal12 <br />swgw <br />sus <br />downstream <br />wsal14 <br />well—alluvium <br />sus <br />Not on Ex7.1 map <br />npdes09 <br />outfall <br />act <br />Dripping <br />wasl13 <br />GW S2W 22A <br />well—alluvium <br />sus <br />wssf3 <br />SW S2W FG4 <br />sw <br />act <br />Not on Ex7.1 map. Road culvert. Replacement <br />dcal-02 <br />well_poc <br />act <br />Not on Ex7.1 map <br />npdes05 <br />outfall <br />act <br />wsspgl <br />SpoilSpringl <br />spoil—spring <br />act <br />Spring has moved downhill from mapped location <br />ww14 <br />GW S2W 14W <br />well—bedrock <br />act <br />GW S2W <br />wov14 <br />14OV <br />well—bedrock <br />act <br />npdesl7 <br />outfall <br />act <br />wwc25 <br />well—bedrock <br />act <br />Annulus has cracked. 7 co -located wells <br />npdesl6 <br />outfall <br />act <br />npdes06 <br />outfall <br />act <br />GW S2W <br />wo17 <br />17OV <br />well—bedrock <br />act <br />3 co -located wells <br />wha110 <br />GW S2W 19A <br />well—alluvium <br />sus <br />whal6-4 <br />GW S2W 6A4 <br />well—alluvium <br />sus <br />4 wells, marked by line of posts? 6A2 suspended <br />whal7-2 <br />GW S2W 7A2 <br />well—alluvium <br />act <br />wshfl <br />SW S2W FG1 <br />sw <br />act <br />Downstream of mapped location <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 8 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 4 <br />Page 3 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.