My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC20902
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC20902
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:21:32 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:37:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978279
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
3/7/2005
Doc Name
Compliance Letter
From
Flag Sand & Gravel
To
DMG
Inspection Date
1/25/2005
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.
/
7
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-1978-279 <br />INSPECTION DATE: 1-25-OS INSPECTOR'S INITIALS GRM <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the normal monitoring program established by the Colorado Division of <br />Minerals and Geology. The permitee and the inspector missed each other do to a scheduling error. The inspection <br />was done prior to moving on to another commitment. The Goldman Pit is located south of the town of Silt just off <br />County Road 335. <br />The mine identification sign was not observed and must be installed per the requirements of Rule 3.1.12 (1) that <br />state: The operator shall post a sign at the entrance to the mine site which shall be cleazly visible from the access <br />road and specify the following; a) the name of the operator; b) indicate that a reclamation pemut for the operation <br />has been issued by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board, and; c) the permit number. The lack of an <br />identification sigp is noted as a problem with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on the last pace of <br />this report. The sign issue has been noted as an issue before. Staff understands that someone with gate access may <br />be responsible for knocking the sign down. Therefore, it maybe better to move the sign back to the visual berm <br />where the permitee has more control and is still visible from the entrance. <br />The site is active with several stockpiles of material on site. A portable stacker, power plant and other equipment <br />were noted on site. Current highwalls are small in nature with the highest being neaz 15 feet. This is an <br />improvement over the last inspection, which had highwalls in excess of 40 feet. <br />A topsoil stockpile is noted along the north side of the pit floor area and serves as a visual berm. Imported material <br />of similaz quality has also been placed here as well. The operator is required to protect the topsoil if in place for <br />more than one growing season by rule. Staff did not note any beneficial vegetation on the stockpiles or evidence of <br />a tackifier agent. The lack of proper erosion control on the topsoil visual berm is noted as a~roblem with the <br />corrective action(s) and correction date specified on the last paee of this report. <br />The inspector noted several problems with the proper storage and disposal ofhazazdousmaterials /waste. Two fuel <br />tanks were observed that did not have adequate secondary containment. Two industrial batteries were noted sitting <br />on the baze earth, which exhibited signs of deteriorization. Also observed were spent grease tubes in the baze ground <br />as well as 5 gallon buckets ofwhat appears to be petroleum products. The inspector is listing the improper handling, <br />storage and disposal of hazazdous materials as a problem at this time with a short time to correct the issue. Failure <br />to correct the issue within 30 days or any subsequent violation of this Rule may result in the matter being set before <br />the Boazd for possible Civil Penalties and or other action. <br />Some cocklebur and thistle were noted on site. The plants aze isolated and at this time do not represent an <br />infestation. The operator should take measures to ensure the problematic weeds do not turn into a bigger problem, <br />which would require a Technical Revision to control them. <br />On the small triangulaz parcel of the permit east of the access road, the inspector noted that beehives have been <br />brought in since the last inspection. The inspector and the Division have no problem with the dual use of the azea, <br />especially given the beneficial use ofthe bees. However, staff must caution against fuming the azea into something <br />that is deleterious in nature. Working hives and associated materials are fine, but the operator cannot allow the site <br />to become cluttered with trash or other junk regazdless of the landowner's wishes. The operator might look at <br />finishing off reclamation of this azea and seeking a release so that it is not a reclamation liability, which the Division <br />would have to bond to clean up. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.