Laserfiche WebLink
March 9,2020 C-1981-035/King Coal Mine JHB <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 R -Roads <br /> N -Availability of Records N -Reclamation Success <br /> N -Backfill& Grading Y -Revegetation <br /> NA -Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste N - Subsidence <br /> NA -Explosives N - Slides and Other Damage <br /> Y -Fish&Wildlife R - Support Facilities On-site <br /> R -Hydrologic Balance Y - Signs and Markers <br /> Y - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan NA - Support Facilities Not On-site <br /> NA - Other NA - Special Categories Of Mining <br /> R -Processing Waste R -Topsoil <br /> COMMENTS <br /> This was a partial inspection conducted by Janet Binns of CDRMS. The mine is an active undergrond mine. Mr. <br /> Jordan McCourt of GCC accompanied the inspection and represented the operator. <br /> AIR RESOURCE PROTECTION—Rule 4.17: <br /> The operator was running a water truck on the haul road at the King II mine area at the onset of the <br /> inspection. The winds were calm during the inspection and no blowing coal dust was observed. GCC has ordered <br /> the "windows"for the clean coal stacker. These have not yet been installed. The Division continues to be <br /> concerned about coal dust blowing off site and on to the topsoil stockpile. Minimization of dust from the stacker <br /> tube should help reduce the dust. <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; Impoundments 4.05.6,4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br /> Pond 1 at King II facilities had a small amount of ice and water flowing into it. There really wasn't a <br /> measurable pool of water. The pond is in good condition for the Spring and doesn't visually appear to require any <br /> maintenance. GCC recently submitted a technical revision to increase the disturbance area northeast of the pond <br /> by a couple of acres. The Division will be evaluating the submittal and evaluate the current pond capacity. <br /> Ditches throughout the King II facilities were clear of debris and appear functional. <br /> The two culverts noted in the February inspection, C 13 and C 15 still require some cleanout of material at inlet or <br /> outlets. Runoff was flowing through both these culverts at the time of this inspection. <br /> At King I the West Pond contained a wet area near the embankment but was not holding any significant water. <br /> The sediment staff was visible and indicated that the pond contained ample storage capacity. The embankments <br /> had good vegetative cover. No problems were identified with the West Pond. The East Pond held a small pool of <br /> ice. There was plenty of storage capacity in the East Pond. No maintenance or other concerns were identified <br /> with the East Pond. <br /> Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 6 <br /> Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />