Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations <br />made during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during <br />the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />Page 1 /2 Deserado C-81-018 <br />6 May 2004 <br />This was a partial inspection of the Deserado Mine conducted by Jim Stark of CDMG. <br />Scott Wanstedt of BME accompanied me on the inspection. The mine was actively <br />producing coal and hauling refuse at the time of the inspection. The weather was <br />warm and clear and the ground was dry. <br />Signs and Markers: All of the necessary signs (including the mine ID signs, permit <br />boundary signs, refuse pile ID signs, subsoil stockpile signs and topsoil stockpile signs) <br />were properly displayed and in good condition. <br />Roads: The access road to the mine site is a paved road. The road was well <br />maintained and in good condition. <br />-The haul road to the refuse piles (RP-1, RP-2/3/4 and RP-5a) was well maintained <br />and in good condition. The road appeared stable and there were no signs of <br />erosional problems. <br />-The conveyor corridor road was well maintained and stable. There were no <br />problems noted with the road. <br />-The access road to the return shafts was stable at the time of the inspection. <br />Hydrologic Balance: -Pond Rp-1 was dry at the time of the inspection. The pond <br />embankment was well vegetated and there were no erosional problems noted. <br />- Pond RP-2/3 was dry at the time of the inspection. Both of the cells at the pond <br />inlet contained water (the east cell was about 1 /3 full and the west cell was full). The <br />pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no <br />erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. <br />- Pond RP-4 contained a small amount of water at the time of the inspection but was <br />not discharging. The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be <br />stable. There were no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. <br />- Pond RP-5a contained a small amount of water at the time of the inspection but <br />was not discharging.. The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to <br />be stable. There were no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. <br />- Pond SS-1 contained a small amount of water at the time of the inspection but was <br />not discharging.. The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be <br />stable. There were no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. <br />- Pond SS-2 was dry at the time of the inspection. The pond embankment was well <br />vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no erosional problems noted on <br />the pond embankment. <br />- The SAE's at RS-l, RS-2 and RS-3 all appeared to be functioning as designed. <br />