Laserfiche WebLink
OBSERVATIONS <br />PERMIT #: M -1995 -056 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: KAP <br />INSPECTION DATE: October 26, 2011 <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety monitoring program. <br />The operator was advised of the inspection and the office was contacted at the time of inspection, but no <br />representative was present during the site inspection. <br />The site is fully active with regard to mining. The pit floor is essentially level and it appears that most of the <br />currently active portion of the site has been mined out. Some of the highwall has been graded and seeded. <br />Some of the highwall still remains near vertical, with no reclamation accomplished in this area. Multiple <br />stockpiles of material, overburden and topsoil are present at the site. There is a large amount of various <br />debris located in multiple locations at the site. <br />Multiple tanks are located around the site. Two had berms constructed around them but no evidence of a <br />liner within them. The other tanks did not have any secondary containment. There were also numerous 5- <br />gallon buckets containing oily liquid and some 55- gallon barrels containing liquids of an unknown nature at the <br />site. None of these containers were protected by secondary containment. <br />The operator will need to identify to the division the contents of all of the tanks at the site. Those containing <br />potentially hazardous materials, such as fuels, must have impenetrable secondary containment beneath them <br />of adequate volume to contain a spill of the contents of the tank. The operator must either provide the <br />division with photographs of the contained tanks or notify the Division within the deadline that containment <br />structures have been installed so a follow up inspection can be conducted. The barrels and 5- gallon buckets <br />must also either be contained to prevent seepage into the ground in the event of a spill, or be removed from <br />the site and disposed of properly, prior to the deadline date noted on page one of this report. <br />The Division has performed a bond calculation to update the costs of the required financial warranty. The <br />Division had conducted a similar estimate in 2007, but evidently failed to notify the operator of the increased <br />bond amount. This bond amount is the current necessary warranty relative both to the current activity and <br />that proposed in the amendment that was approved in 2007. <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />