Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />3~g <br />"tIyESI7E I~'SPECTIOk !v9RksIl!E <br />S?ptemher 'L9, 30, h October 1, 192 <br />Cnlow~o Coal Compam <br />5751 ti[ate HiFLway 13 <br />!•teeker. Colorado <br />Co1nw\o Strip mine <br />Ground. and !•ieather Conditions During the r_nspectior.: Ur7 =:n.d cool, r:ith <br />nn si pa of nrar.i nitat inn "l.4 hours prior to th~a inspection <br />Personnel Present During the inspe<tion: <br />Jim Fieer Cnlo~;\'~~ Coal <br />Joan Garcia Cnlowvn Cn;:] <br />Keith Bocklem:;n Colowvc Co.rl <br />E!~ <br />Sre\e !Catl~~en Colorado Ui\isiun o[ "linerals and Geologc <br />Colorado ui\isinn ~~[ '1ine-als .:nd Geolofv <br />Ga rc Fritz Offico of Surfar.~, `l i.oi.nt~\~~l buoce r;n::~ Fiala llrfir.e !, ;:44 <br />This was a cr~m~,ler~ c;~ersiz.ht inspection. ~Cha Sr ;[e of Colorado a;a=. <br />notified regarding. my schedule and ~a•is dhl~~ n., sand sum-:one to .anet me <br />,, the mina to coodnct d joint inspection. <br />E~iF'ORCEMEtiT ~aCT10?' <br />WY~ <br />There rti-s no proutstanding state enforcement actions pending abaten:e:n <br />!•r~~_or to this inspection not were rhP.Ie del` 1'i1ke11 by the state rtnrin~~ <br />the inspection. A number of mainten.auce items sere identified durin¢ <br />[he inspection bg state personnel that required compliance by the <br />operator within a prescribed time.. I will address those areas in the <br />main body of this report. One question ~sas raised by the state <br />regarding the des en criteria for the new diversions recently built for <br />drainage control below the new expansion area. Fie ~CCre enable to find <br />the approved design for the diversions in the approved mine plan. The <br />operator ,ras going to make a more thorough review of thei[ data for the <br />crossections and. Mr. Routten said he would also check their files for <br />[he information. If it was not found, failure to have an approved <br />design would result in a \ioation. <br />I i=sued Ten Day `otice fI92-02-7.44-2 with too parts for potential <br />violations noted during the inspection that were not addressed h~ the <br />Stete. !~iolation numl~~er or.a was issued fi,r the operator's [ailure to <br />remove to;;soil and\or approved subsoil from areas before disturbance of <br />areas effected b~ surface coal mining, operations. Topsoil and or an <br />approved suhsoil substitute was not pulled from the area prior to <br />building. the diversions. They' were nut in for the recent mine P.tipan510!1 <br />for drainage control in Section ]5 and 16. Company officials said that <br />rl;e rntnl combined length of the diversions where the topsoil was not <br />pulled is apprntiimdtelr iG,000 foot and overall they average twelve foot <br />