Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br /> Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made during <br /> the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the <br /> facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br /> This was a complete inspection conducted by Tom Kaldenbach of DRMS. Henry Barbe of Mountain <br /> Coal Company represented the operator. Access to higher areas was prevented by snow cover. <br /> Lower-lying areas were largely free of snow. With the operator's consent,this report was issued from <br /> the Denver office of DRMS. <br /> The longwall was active in Panel 18. Development work was in progress for panel E-1. <br /> Availabilitv of Records <br /> All required records were on file in the mine office (see attached list). <br /> Signs and Markers <br /> Mine i.d. signs were properly displayed at the two entrances on Highway 133. Topsoil markers were <br /> properly displayed on topsoil stockpiles seen during the inspection. Stream buffer markers were in <br /> place in Sylvester Gulch. The affected area boundary was properly marked by signs around the <br /> perimeter of the disturbed area in the main surface facilities area. <br /> Roads <br /> Road surfaces, embankments, and road ditches and culverts were in good repair in the main surface <br /> facilities area Sylvester Gulch. There were no dust problems. <br /> Hydrologic Balance <br /> Sediment control ponds MB-2R(outfall 004), and MB-3 (outfall 005) appeared to contain small pools <br /> of water and were not discharging. Pond SG-1 (outfall 014) appeared to contain a small pool of water <br /> underneath ice. There was no discharge from the loadout sediment sump, MB-4 (outfall 008). There <br /> was no discharge of mine water into Sylvester Gulch from outfall 017. <br /> Unlined ditches next to Sylvester Gulch Road and around shaft sites in the Gulch were in good repair. <br /> Processing Waste <br /> The faces of the Refuse Pile Expansion pile and the Lower Refuse Pile showed no evidence of <br /> structural instability. Survey markers were in place.on the faces of both piles. The top of the Lower <br /> Pile is being used for equipment storage, as approved. <br /> 3 <br />