My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC40798
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC40798
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:44:53 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 11:18:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978323
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
8/24/2006
Doc Name
Inspection report
From
DRMS grm
To
Parkerson Construction
Inspection Date
8/22/2006
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.
/
6
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-1978-323 <br />INSPECTION DATE: 8-22-06 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS GRM <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the normal monitoring program established by the Colorado Division of <br />Reclamation, Mining and Safety for permitted sites. The Woodring Pit is a 112c pit located north of State Road 330 <br />near Molina, Colorado. Milton Derrick, consultant to Parkerson Construction accompanied the inspector on site. <br />The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers are in place and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. <br />The sign is clearly posted at the entrance to the mine site. Permit boundaries are marked by t-posts, fencing and <br />natural features. <br />The site is active with several large stockpiles of crushed materials being managed for feed to a portable asphalt <br />plant. Trucks and loaders were observed coming and going through out the inspection. Roads are well maintained <br />but dust from the heavy truck traffic could be observed from a fair distance away. Although, not within the <br />jurisdiction ofthe Division, it is recommended that Parkerson Construction discuss dust management with the sub <br />contractor on site. <br />Stormwater management is primarily designed to contain run-on on site. The entrance road climbs a steep grade that <br />has a bar ditch to the inside to prevent off site damage to the road below. <br />The inspector did not note any noxious weeds on site. Annual non-noxious weeds are noted on topsoil piles as well <br />as some volunteer grasses. <br />Reclamation appears to have begun along the west and northwestern corner of the pit. Topsoil /overburden have <br />been pushed in to cover the highwall. The inspector is unsure at this time if they are 2:1 as required, but work is also <br />on going. Please be sure to verify slope angles prior to any reseeding efforts. <br />As noted, a portable asphalt plant is currently working on site. The inspector has some issues with the housekeeping <br />within the pit. As can be seen with the pictures provided with this report, there are multiple areas ofasphalt spillage <br />and possible oil contamination to soil. Asphalt is considered inert after 60 days, however, it can release <br />hydrocarbons into the soils if rained on or saturated in water prior to that. Asphalt reject is also not a desirable <br />component for reclamation and when scattered about has a tendency to show up in undesirable places later on. The <br />site should have 1 reject pile area. The inspector noted asphalt reject in numerous places with no real rhyme or <br />reason to its location. Connector hoses for hot asphalt mix were observed shoved under trailers and allowed to drain <br />onto bare soils as well as overflow from other parts of the plant. This is an unacceptable practice. Hoses should be <br />stored in a manor to prevent excess spillage and reject should be confined to a central point for proper disposal after <br />60 days. The inspector is aware that spillage to some degree is inherent with the activity; however clean-up should <br />be done immediately and not allowed to build up. Staffalso noted some 55-gallon barrels and 5-gallon pails that are <br />not in secondary containment. The secondary containment is required for empty containers as well as full due to <br />residues within the containers that can be released into the environment. The improper storage of hazardous <br />materials and the housekeeping issues are noted at the end of this report as a problem. Please note the corrective <br />action and corrective action date for compliance on this issue. <br />The Financial Warranty was last reviewed in 2000. Staff will recalculate the bond using accepted tasks and volumes <br />from the last update. Staffwill note establishmentofslopes as indicated in this reportalong the west and northwest <br />pit edges. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.