Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made <br />during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection <br />and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action <br />This was a complete inspection conducted by Kent Gorham of the Colorado Division of <br />Minerals and Geology (DMG) This mine has closed and reclamation of most areas is <br />complete. Ground conditions were dry and the weather was extremely windy <br />Availability of Records <br />The public copy of the mine records is kept at the Energy Fuels Coal Company office in <br />Florence. George Patterson of EFMC provided me with copies of the 3`0 quarter 2005 <br />sediment pond inspection, RDA inspection, and Discharge Monitoring Reports. These <br />documents were returned to the Division office and scanned into the permit imaging system. <br />All records were found in compliance as detailed on page 2a of this report. <br />Hydrologic Balance <br />The two remaining sediment ponds at <br />the mine site were noted to be dry. No <br />evidence of significant runoff was noted <br />anywhere on the site. The riser walkway <br />and pond 5 are shown at right. <br />Processing Waste <br />The refuse pile appeared normal, with no <br />sign of slumps, slides, or damage of any <br />kind. <br />ReyC4etation <br />Cattle were not observed on the <br />site during the inspection. The <br />reclaimed area blends well into the <br />surrounding terrain, as shown at <br />right. <br />Offsite Support FacihUes <br />The loadout ponds were dry and no <br />changes were noted at the loadout <br />area. The small reclaimed areas at <br />the Monarch fan site and Newlin <br />Creek topsoil pile footprint appear <br />normal. <br />. ~,+ <br />_ _ .: i .. <br />`: <br />-• <br />~F ~ - <br />• <br />r. s ~R, .H... :..i <br />:;~ . ~ :- :.~, .~ . ,,,fie, "yy.; <br />r ~..' ~' ~... t.. >~ ,,,.sue... % I .~ <br />