Laserfiche WebLink
December 7, 2011 C -1980 -007 /West Elk Mine JRS <br /> <br /> <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 7 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 2 <br /> <br /> Page 2 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y =Inspecte d N =Not Inspected R =Comments Noted V =Violation Issued NA =Not Applicable <br />N - Air Resource Protection <br />N - Availability of Records <br />N - Backfill & Grading <br />N - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />N - Explosives <br />N - Fish & Wildlife <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />R - G en. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />R - Other <br />R - Processing Waste <br /> <br />R - Roads <br />N - Reclamation Success <br />N - Revegetation <br />N - Subsidence <br />R - Slides and Other Damage <br />R - Support Facilities On -site <br />N - Signs and Markers <br />N - Support Facilities Not On -site <br />N - Special Categories Of Mining <br />NA - Topsoil <br /> <br /> <br />COMMENTS <br /> <br />This was a partial inspectio n of the West Elk Mine conducted by Jim Stark of the Colorado Division of <br />Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division). Chris Nyikos, Robin Schiro and Matt Brezonick (a consultant) from <br />Mountain Coal accompanied me on the inspection. I also met with Kathy W elt and several other members of the <br />Mountain Coal staff prior to the field inspection. The meeting was to introduce ourselves to one another, as I have <br />not been on the site in a decade. The mine was actively producing coal, shipping coal and hauling ref use to the <br />RPE at the time of the inspection. The weather was cool and sunny and the ground was covered with a small <br />amount of snow in most areas. <br /> <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE - Rule 4.05 ; Drainage Control 4.05.1, 4.05.2, 4.05.3; Siltation Structures 4.05.5, <br />4.05.6; Discha rge S tructures 4.05.7, 4.05.10; Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Gro und Water <br />Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Drainage – Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; <br />Impoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br />- Pond MB -3 contained water approximately five feet below the spillway and was not disch arging at the time of <br />the inspection. The pond embankment was well vegetated and stable and no erosional problems were noted. <br />- Pond MB -5E contained water with approximately ten feet of freeboard in the south cell and the north cell (along <br />Highway 133) wa s dry. Neither pond was discharging. The pond embankment was well vegetated and stable and <br />no erosional problems were noted at the time of the inspection. <br />- The RPE pond contained water in both cells. Each cell had approximately six feet of freeboard. The lining in <br />the pond appeared to be intact. The pond embankment was well vegetated and stable and no erosional problems <br />were noted. <br />- Pond SG -1 contained a small amount of water but was not discharging at the time of the inspection. The <br />emergency spill way appeared to be stable. The pond embankment was covered with snow but appeared to be <br />stable. No erosional problems were noted. <br />- Fresh water ponds FW -1 and FW -2 were both full at the time of the inspection. Both pond liners appeared to be <br />intact. Th e pond embankments were well vegetated and stable and no erosional problems were noted. The <br />overflow channels from both ponds were stable and clear.