Laserfiche WebLink
III. Comments -Compliance <br />Below are comments on the inspection, The comments include discussion of <br />observations made during the inspection. Comments also describe any <br />enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence <br />supporting the enforcement action. <br />On June 17 and 18 a complete rnspection was conducted at the Mart• Strip I~Ilne. <br />Present during the inspection was Mitch }foltings of 05M and George Pattersun of <br />Kerr Coal Co. 'Phis inspection was an US~i oversight inspection. Uuctt~g the <br />inspection the weather was warm and ary. It may have rained within the past <br />several days but the roads were dry. <br />Records were checked and a concern was noted. The Blasting Records and the <br />times listed on the published blasting schedule do not agree. Several blasts were <br />noted to be outside Lhe ~ hour, every other hour, basting schedule. An A1LRll Nule <br />change removed the ~ hour maximum blasting lre:iou and replaced it with sunrise <br />to sunset period. Therefore, the every ocher hour schedule should be removed <br />from the gutllic notice. The last blast was noted Lo he 7/15/91. <br />'i he ti;ine site was toured. 1•he inspection started at Lhe south side of the 7G0 pit. <br />An open bore hole was noted GO feet to the south of the pit edge. 'I'bis should tie <br />filled because it represents a sa:ety hazard. <br />Water monitoring well 79-1 i,~as not constructed properly. Phe well is essentially <br />an open borehoie with a PVC pipe thrown in it. 'I'bis is unscceptable. The hole is <br />open to surface t•unoff, borehole wall sluffage and surface material such as grass, <br />insects and hapless rouenLs. 'this can cause a drastic change in water chemistry. <br />'finis welt 5no~i~d be properly overhauird. 'Phe proper depth of• the well siwuld be <br />reestablished. the annulus around the well screen should be filled with pea sized <br />gravel and the rest of the well snnulus backfilled with cuttings. <br />ii'te outside embankment of sediment pond A showed a good amount of erosion. It <br />was sparsely vegetated (15% covert and there were many 3 inch ribs with sedunent <br />fans spreading out below in the undisturbed area. The chances of vegetating the <br />embankment are slight. I'he fill embankment material looks like spods material and <br />the surface was as hard as a troclc. Po minimize erosion the embankment shou]d me <br />mulched. To minimize the sediment runoff, silt fences, hay bales, sediment tt•apy_in <br />oerms or other' devices should be installed. <br />Culvert 1-A (18" CPM), under the access road to Pond B, had some piping aluu~ <br />the side and down-cutting on the outlet. This Ghould be fixed. <br />The B-3 ditch from culvert 1-A should_be_reconstructed. As it is now, the material <br />dug out to make this ditch forms a levee on each side and prevents drainage from <br />either side of the ditch from entering. Erosion was noted in this ditch at the pond <br />inlet. 'Yhe gully was G' deep and had few large rocks that were being undercut. <br />'t'his should have ript•ap placed to prevent further down ctrttin>;. Just to the south <br />of this Ditch a 2' deep gully was noted on the inside pond embankment. This gully <br />was caused by sheet flow, from the area south of B-3 ditcii, converging before <br />entering the pond and causing erosion. A contour ditch in this area to divert this <br />flow to the establisneu ditch would_remedv the problem. <br />