Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made during <br />the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the <br />facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />This was a complete inspection conducted by Tom Kaldenbach of DRMS. Henry Barbe of Mountain <br />Coal Company represented the operator. The ground was dry. With the operator's consent, this <br />report was issued from the Denver office of DRMS. <br />The longwall was active in Panel 21. Development work was in progress for panel E-1. <br />Availability of Records <br />All required records were on file in the mine office (see attached list). <br />Signs and Markers <br />Mine i.d. signs were properly displayed at the two entrances on Highway 133. Topsoil markers were <br />properly displayed on topsoil stockpiles seen during the inspection. Stream buffer markers were in <br />place in Sylvester Gulch. The affected azea boundary was properly marked by signs around the <br />perimeter of the disturbed azea in the main surface facilities area. <br />Roads <br />Road surfaces, embankments, and road ditches and culverts were in good repair in the main surface <br />facilities area Sylvester Gulch. There were no dust problems. The extension of the Sylvester Gulch <br />road is nearing completion. The crushed rock road surface is in place. Silt fences were in place along <br />sections of the embankment. <br />Hydrologic Balance <br />The operator's representative reported that two days before the inspection the mine had approximately <br />1.8 inches of rain during a 24-hour period. (The mine's 10-year, 24-hour storm is considered to be 1.9 <br />inches.) During the inspection little evidence was found indicating erosion from the recent rain. <br />Slopes in disturbed azeas were not gullied. Ditches were not scoured and did not contain <br />accumulations of sediment. Sediment control ponds MB-2R (outfall 004), and MB-3 (outfall 005) <br />contained little water and little or no sediment; they had been cleaned out just before the rain. <br />Embankments, inslopes, and discharge structures of the ponds appeared to be in good condition. <br />Unlined ditches next to Sylvester Gulch Road and azound shaft sites in the Gulch were in good repair. <br />Processing Waste <br />The faces of the Refuse Pile Expansion pile and the Lower Refuse Pile showed no evidence of <br />structural instability. Survey markers were in place on the faces of both piles. The top of the Lower <br />Pile is being used for equipment storage, as approved, <br />