Laserfiche WebLink
October 25, 2016 C-1981-035/King Coal Mine RDZ <br /> <br /> <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 2 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 2 <br /> <br /> Page 2 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y=Inspected N=Not Inspected R=Comments Noted V=Violation Issued NA=Not Applicable <br />R - Air Resource Protection <br />R - Availability of Records <br />Y - Backfill & Grading <br />R - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />NA - Explosives <br />Y - Fish & Wildlife <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />R - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />N - Other <br />Y - Processing Waste <br /> <br />Y - Roads <br />Y - Reclamation Success <br />Y - Revegetation <br />Y - Subsidence <br />Y - Slides and Other Damage <br />R - Support Facilities On-site <br />R - Signs and Markers <br />NA - Support Facilities Not On-site <br />NA - Special Categories Of Mining <br />R - Topsoil <br /> <br /> <br />COMMENTS <br /> <br />A complete inspection was conducted by Rob Zuber of DRMS on October 25, 2016. Michael McFarland and <br />Jordan McCourt accompanied Rob in the field. The weather was cloudy and warm. The ground was somewhat <br />muddy. <br />AIR RESOURCE PROTECTION – Rule 4.17: <br />No dust problems were seen with the haul road or any other roads. <br /> <br />AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS – Rule 5.02.4(1): <br />No issues were found with the records. <br /> <br />EXCESS SPOIL and DEVELOPMENT WASTE – Rule 4.09 <br />Placement; Drainage Control; Surface Stabilization: <br />The un-reclaimed portion of the Refuse Pile appeared well graded and well compacted. There were no visible low <br />spots to hold water, and no problems with rills were seen. The slopes were measured with a clinometer, and both <br />the cross slope and slope down the pile (from east to west) were found to be 3 – 4 percent. These values are <br />approximate given the accuracy of a clinometer at very small slopes, so it appears that the pile slopes are in <br />compliance (cross slope should be 2 percent and slope east to west should be 1 percent). <br /> <br />During the inspection, many piles of refuse on the north side of the Refuse Pile were staged to be spread. Each <br />pile was approximately eight cubic yards in volume. There were some rocks approximately 18 inches long in the <br />piles, but these rocks appeared to be a very small portion of the material (much less than 20 percent of weight per <br />visual estimate, which is the specification in the PAP). A small amount of trash was seen in the refuse. Mike <br />McFarland said that he will remind the equipment operator to remove the trash before compaction. <br /> <br />In the area beneath the Refuse Pile, no staining was seen on rocks and soil (as from mineral deposits).