My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC19360
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC19360
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:20:25 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:30:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1991078
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
Inspection Report
Inspection Date
9/29/2005
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.
/
5
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
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 of the Hamilton Mine conducted on September 29, 2005 by Mike <br />Boulay and Tom Gillis of the DMG. Dave Andrews, Honeywood Coal Company's contractor <br />was present during the entire inspection. Weather conditions were cloudy and cool. Ground <br />conditions were damp from significant rainfall the night prior to this inspection. There was no <br />activity at the mine site during the inspection. <br />Availability of Records <br />Dave Andrews brought the records to the mine site from his home in Norwood. All required <br />records were available for review. Please see the attached records checklist at the end of this <br />inspection report. <br />Hvdroloeic Balance <br />Sedimentation Ponds A and B were inspected. Pond B was retaining water at a level just below <br />the discharge pipe. Pond A was retaining only a very small amount of water. Neither of the <br />ponds was dischazging. Pond inlets and discharge structures at both locations were in good <br />condition. Pond embankments were stable and well vegetated. <br />Roads <br />Roads were wet in places but in good condition. Culverts were cleaz of sediment and debris and <br />functioning as intended. There was no running water in any of the road ditches. Road surfaces <br />were maintained and stable. <br />Reclamation Success <br />Vegetative cover was in good condition and appeared to be well established in the reclaimed <br />azeas. No significant erosion features were noted in the reclaimed area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.