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 1/3 Deserado C-81-018 <br />7 June OS ~v <br />This was a complete inspection of the Deserado Mine conducted by Jim Stark of <br />CDMG. Scott Wanstedt of BME accompanied me on the inspection. The mine was <br />actively producing and shipping coal at the time of the inspection. The weather was <br />warm and sunny and the ground was dry (although, according to Scott, the mine <br />area received 1.77" of rain in the past week). <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. There has been considerable rain at the site in the past week <br />and the road appeared stable and there was no rutting or erosional problems noted <br />on the road. <br />-The conveyor corridor road was well maintained and stable. There were no rutting <br />or erosional problems noted with the road. <br />- All of the roads within the facilities area were well maintained and appeared to be <br />stable at the time of the inspection. <br />- The light-use roads to Return Shaft #3, the rock dust storage area, the slot storage <br />area and the water tank bench were well maintained and stable at the time of the <br />inspection. No erosional problems were noted on any of these roads <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 contained water approximately four feet below the discharge pipe at <br />the time of the inspection. Both of the cells at the pond inlet were full. The pond <br />embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no <br />erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. The pond was not discharging <br />and did not appear to have discharged since the last inspection. <br />- Pond RP-4 contained water approximately three feet below the discharge pipe. <br />The pond embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were <br />no erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. The pond was not <br />discharging and did not appear to have discharged since the last inspection. <br />- Pond RP-5a contained water approximately three feet below the principle spillway. <br />The pond was not discharging and did not appear to have discharged. The pond <br />embankment was well vegetated and appeared to be stable. There were no <br />erosional problems noted on the pond embankment. <br />