Laserfiche WebLink
June 15, 2015 C- I 994-082/Yoast Mine <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y=Inspected N=Not Inspected R=Comments Noted V=Violation Issued NA Not Applicable <br />N - Air Resource Protection <br />N - Roads <br />N - Availability of Records <br />N - Reclamation Success <br />N - Backfill & Grading <br />N - Revegetation <br />N - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />N - Subsidence <br />N - Explosives <br />R - Slides and Other Damage <br />Y - Fish & Wildlife <br />N - Support Facilities On-site <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />Y - Signs and Markers <br />Y - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />Y - Support Facilities Not On-site <br />N - Other <br />N - Special Categories Of Mining <br />N - Processing Waste <br />N - Topsoil <br />COMMENTS <br />LDS <br />This was a partial inspection by Leigh Simmons and Clayton Wein of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety (the Division). The inspection was accompanied by Dennis Jones who is currently working in a <br />consulting capacity for Seneca Coal Company (SCC)/Peabody Energy. <br />Recent months have been very wet in the area. At the time of the inspection the weather was warm and sunny, <br />with occasional squally storms. <br />The primary focus of the inspection was active and suspended water monitoring points. Time did not permit an <br />extension of the focus to abandoned monitoring points, although abandonment reports for a number of monitoring wells <br />have recently been submitted to the Division and an inspection of those points is pending. <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, 4.05.10; <br />Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; <br />Drainage — Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; Impoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br />Most of the active and suspended water monitoring points were inspected and their locations tagged with a GPS. <br />Field comments on each point are recorded in the attribute table copied below. <br />Observation suggests that most of the flumes installed to measure the discharge flow rate from the ponds were <br />not in use at the time of the inspection. In some cases the flumes were full of sediment and vegetation, and buckets were <br />lying near to the primary spillway outlets suggesting that a bucket and stopwatch method was being used to measure <br />discharge flow rate. Although this can be a satisfactory method of measuring the discharge rate, at times of high flow it <br />is 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 />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 8 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 4 <br />Page 2 of 16 <br />