INSPEC36761 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. Page 1/2 Deserado C-81 28 Apr OS This was a partial inspection of the Deserado Mine conducted by Jim Stark of CDMG. Scott Wanstedt of BME accompanied me on the inspection. The mine was not producing coal at the time of the inspection, as they were nearing the completion of a longwall move. The weather was warm and cloudy and the ground was damp in areas (it had rained at the site more than 3/+ of an inch in the last week). Signs and Markers: All of the necessary signs (including the mine ID signs, permit boundary signs, refuse pile ID signs, subsoil stockpile signs and topsoil stockpile signs) were properly displayed and in good condition. Roads: The access road to the mine site is a paved road. The road was well maintained and in good condition. -The haul road to the refuse piles (RP-l , RP-2/3/4 and RP-5a) was well maintained and in good condition. There has been considerable rain at the site in the past week and the road appeared stable and fhere was no tufting or erosional problems noted on the road. -The conveyor corridor road was well maintained and stable. There were no rutting or erosional problems noted with the road. -All of the roads within the facilities area were well maintained and appeared to be stable at the time of the inspection. Hydrologic Balance: -Pond RP-1 was wet at the bottom at the time of the inspection. The pond embankment was well vegetated and there were no erosional problems noted. - Pond RP-2/3 contained water approximately five feet below the discharge pipe at the time of the inspection. Both of the cells at the pond inlet were full. The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. The pond was not discharging and did not appear to have discharged since the last inspection. - Pond RP-4 Contained water several feet below the discharge pipe. The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. The pond was not discharging and did not appear to have discharged since the last inspection. - Pond RP-Sa contained water several feet below the principle spillway. The pond was not discharging and did not appear to have discharged. The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. - Pond SS-1 contained water at the time of the inspection but was not discharging. The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment.