My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-05-14_INSPECTION - M1984014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1984014
>
2008-05-14_INSPECTION - M1984014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:31:34 PM
Creation date
5/14/2008 9:45:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1984014
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
5/14/2008
Doc Name
Inspection report
From
DRMS
To
Cotter Corporation
Inspection Date
4/2/2008
Email Name
GRM
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 21 <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-1984-014 <br />INSPECTION DATE: 4-2-08 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS GRM <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the normal monitoring program established by the Colorado Dl~ivision of <br />Reclamation, Mining and Safety for permitted sites. The JD-6 is a regular 110(2) permitted site for an underground <br />uranium mining operation. Cotter Corporation holds the Department of Energy (DOE) Lease for the JD-6 Tract. <br />Glen Williams from Cotter and Dan Burns from the DOE 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 located on the County Road where it enters the permit boundary. Permit boundaries are marked by t- <br />posts that are visible. <br />The mine is back in stand-by status after reactivation and a short time in production. The inspector notes ore is still <br />stockpiled on site at this time. A large portion of the stockpile has been removed or replaced back in they mine per <br />the Division's request. It is understood that there is no place to move the stockpile to that would not create a <br />problem elsewhere. After review and discussions the Division request that a berm be built around the entire <br />. , ,... ,. ., .. r.,, ,. <br />stockpile design is being noted as a problem under the minim plan with__a_corrective action date at the end of this <br />rem ort. <br />The inspector notes some equipment is being stored on site. No major leaks of fuels or oils were noted.l'i The fuel <br />storage tank is noted as being empty and all mine buildings are secure and in good repair. ', <br />Stormwater controls for the permit area are a series of bar ditches and berms. The inspector notes that the ditches <br />and grading have directed most of the stormwater into a make shift retention pond at the base of the waste dump. <br />Rilling and other markers indicate that drainage is running down the main roads. A review of the permitl, indicates <br />no formal stormwater control plans. The inspector, DOE and Cotter agreed that bar ditches should be placed on haul <br />and access roads to keep stormwater moving towards the retention and sedimentation pond. The issue of stormwater <br />control is listed as a problem with a corrective action date at the end of this report. It is important to note'Ithat prior <br />to any reactivation the Division will require a Technical Revision that addresses a permit wide stormwater control <br />engineered to contain the 10 yr /24 hour event and must safely pass a 100 yr/24 hr event. This plan can beireviewed <br />and approved while the mine is on stand-by which will result in no delays when resumption of production is <br />contemplated. ~ <br />The portal is noted as being secured by locked gate m good repair. <br />Topsoil is stockpiled just north of the mine office on the lower bench. Natural vegetation appears to be corning back <br />on the pile. In the new dump area where much of the topsoil was removed from around boulders 'volunteer <br />vegetation is also being reintroduced. This area will require some monitoring and should vegetation not come in as <br />well as expected the operator will need to seed the area.I <br />The bond for the site was recalculated in 2002. Based on current conditions the bond appears adequate as the total <br />proposed disturbance has not yet been achieved. Other factors include the pending decision on DMO status which <br />could impact the reclamation liability as well. If these issues are not resolved by the next annual inspection an <br />update will be done. <br />No other issues are noted at this time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.