2019-06-19_INSPECTION - C1981035

Home Browse Search

June 14, 2019 C-1981-035/King Coal Mine RDZ Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 8 Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 4 Page 3 of 9 identified with ditches or culverts at King I. Most importantly, runoff from the Temporary Coal Mine Waste Storage Area below the Refuse Pile is separated from the clear water ditch, and the Refuse Pile is not draining to Reach 1. The BMPs at the King II entrance appear to be functioning well. The portion of CWD-1A below the King II Pond requires some maintenance; it is still silted-in causing flow to back up into the pond outlet. Perhaps a sump could be placed in the channel approximately 100 feet below the outlet (actual distance can be determined in the field) to improve the drainage away from the pond, and this was briefly discussed with Tom Bird. The area north of the scale should be graded to improve drainage, as standing water was seen next to the scale. No other problems were identified with drainage at King II. The King II pond was mostly dry and not discharging. No problems were seen with the embankment of the King II pond. The containment berm for the concrete wash out area next to the pond looks to be functioning. PROCESSING WASTE/COAL MINE WASTE PILES – Rule 4.10 and 4.11 Drainage Control; Surface Stabilization; Placement: The un-reclaimed portion of the Refuse Pile (upper portion) had no large piles of waste rock, and was generally in good condition. No puddles were seen on the surface of the Refuse Pile. GCC should watch this closely as the pile is growing quickly, and the drainage configuration of the pile does not match the final design. In particular, the final design shows all of the runoff flowing south, directly to Reach 10, but the current topography of the pile is more complicated, with some area draining to the north and around the front of the pile. The Refuse Pile underdrain is being extended up the valley per GCC staff. Vertical PVC pipes on the surface appear to mark the location of this buried feature. This needs to be confirmed by other GCC staff. (Tom Bird was not certain about all activities at the mine as he has not been on site a lot lately.) Also, as explained to Jordon McCourt on the telephone in recent weeks, the next Refuse Pile inspection report should document this construction with photographs, figures, maps, and/or other appropriate information. At the lower end of the underdrain, GCC must make sure that it is not buried by material. Also, as always, GCC should inspect the lower ends of underdrains for mineral staining. ROADS – Rule 4.03 Construction 4.03.1(3)/4.03.2(3), Drainage 4.03.1(4)/4.03.2(4), Surfacing and Maintenance4.03.1(5) and (6)/4.03.2(5) and (6), Reclamation 4.03.1(7)/4.03.2(7): No issues were seen with any roads.