My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC14571
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC14571
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:16:01 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:06:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1984014
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
5/12/2005
Doc Name
Insp Rpt
From
DMG
To
Cotter Corporation
Inspection Date
5/4/2005
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-1984-014 <br />INSPECTION DATE: 5/4/05 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS GRM <br />This inspection was conducted as part ofthe continuing monitoring program established by the Colorado Division of <br />Minerals and Geology. The JD-6 and associated Mineral Joe Claims, JD-8, JD-9 and the Wright Group / SM-18 <br />Mines have begun mining operations after a lengthy period of minimal activity. The Division of Minerals and <br />Geology is inspecting the referenced sites in conjunction with permit reviews to ensure that permits meet current <br />standards for metal minutg activities. Senior Environmental Protection Specialist Carl Mount, Environmental <br />Protection Specialist 11 Steve Shuey and Environmental Protection Specialist 11 Russ Means visited the above <br />referenced sites to familiarize Carl with the sites as the DMO review process continues. <br />The JD-8 MINE is the youngest ofthe mines noted above. Currently mining is still primarily in the developmental <br />rather than production stage. Ore was stockpiled on a waste rock constructed pad just east of the portal. Waste <br />materials aze being brought out and dumped to the north of existing waste piles to expand the work platform. Once <br />the platform is of sufficient size a permanent building will be constructed. <br />The permit boundaries below the waste pile aze cleazly mazkedwith t-posts. Waste piles have extended to the point <br />where the operator must construct proper stormwater and sedimentation control measures below the toe of the <br />slopes. The operator stated eazlier Cotter will put in a baz ditch at the toe of the slope and direct water to the natural <br />drainage to the west. Silt fencing will be installed at the natural drainage entrance for sedimentation controls. The <br />lack of sedimentation and storrnwater control measures is listed as a problem at the end of this report. The issue is <br />noted as a problem to ensure installation is done quickly. (photos 1,2,3) <br />The onsite fuel tanks appeared to be in proper secondary containment constructed of earth berms and thick plastic <br />during the Mazch inspection. Much of the liner was under water due to heavy rains. Closer inspection on this date <br />revealed a significant design flaw. A seam runs across the bottom of the containment structure that is not sealed by <br />any means. Leaked fuels would simply seep through the seam into the ground. The inspector noted a battery, 55 <br />gallon barrel and 5-gallon fuel can right outside the containment structure as well. A major soil stain was observed <br />outside the compressor house on bare ground. Barrels within the compressor house were on concrete and protected <br />from damage and therefore are not an issue at this time. The lack of proper secondary containment and handling of <br />petroleum products is being noted as a problem at the end of this report. (Photos 4,5,6,7,8,9) <br />The approved plans call for more waste dump areas to the east of the main entrance. It appears as ifthe azea is being <br />cleared of brush and trees to begin construction of the dump pad. The inspector observed waste rock that was <br />covering recently exposed topsoil materials. Waste piles are also covering up valuable soils that should be salvaged <br />as much as possible. The operator must save all available topsoils for reclamation. The mixing ofwaste with topsoil <br />cannot occur. The failure to protect and save topsoil is listed as a problem at the end of this report. (Photo 3,10) <br />Overall, the site has slipped from the previous inspection of a month ago as noted elsewhere. Poor housekeeping is <br />the biggest problem with regazds to many of these issues. Petroleum spills and improper handling ofcontainers was <br />noted here and at other sites as well. Stormwater control and sedimentation problems are also noted. The waste <br />rock piles have extended to the point that installing the required bar ditch will be more difficult. Topsoil below the <br />waste piles is not being salvaged and could easily be used to berm the boundary and create the necessary ditches. <br />Ore stockpile areas must contain any store run-off and current conditions allow drainage to not only go down the <br />road but dump into the natural drainage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.