Laserfiche WebLink
King Coal Mine (C-1981-035) TR -20 Adequacy Review #3 Response <br />However, the permit does not appear to address the inspection requirements. Please revise the Mine <br />Waste Rock Disposal narrative in Section 2.05.3 of the permit to address inspection elements and <br />frequency for the West Waste Bank. <br />Please provide dates of any inspections and any findings and recommendations suggested by Trautner or <br />other inspector. <br />King Coal: Section 2.05.3, page 3 now directs the reader to Section <br />6.5.1 of the Trautner report for inspection frequency and elements. <br />DRMS Oct 2015: DRMS is in receipt of the 2015 Second Quarter Inspection Report of the King I mine <br />refuse pile conducted by Stoner Engineering on 29 June 2015. This inspection revealed no issues. <br />Please provide DRMS the Third Quarter 2015 King 1 refuse pile inspection report. <br />Reviewing the referenced section 6.5.1 of the Trautner report for inspection frequency please provide <br />the following information: <br />i. Has all material been removed to expose the conditions of original surface? <br />ii. If all material has been removed please provide the date that Trautner Geotech LLC inspected the <br />conditions of the materials exposed. <br />iii. Also, please provide any correspondence related to Trautner's observations particularly with <br />respect to the potential of subsurface water migration, water pooling, and the presence of <br />springs or seeps. <br />e) Appendix C of Trautner was prepared by a sub -contractor, CDS Laboratories. Their results <br />indicate that subsurface water was found only in TB -1, not in TB -6 as Trautner states. Please address <br />this apparent contradiction on the location of water found in the Test Borings. <br />This question does not appear to have been addressed in GCC's 06 -Oct -2014 response. <br />King Coal: This question has been addressed on page 8 of the Trautner <br />report. <br />DRMS Oct 2015: Item resolved <br />g) In 6.5, Trautner recommends the CMW be placed with a moisture content within 3% of <br />optimum and compacted to a minimum of 90% MDD (standard Proctor). An initial lift thickness of <br />12" is recommended, possibly adjusted to 24" as field monitoring and testing is done. These <br />recommendations are acceptable; Rule 4.10.4(3)(a) requires that CMW be spread in layers no more <br />than 24" in thickness, and (b) requires compaction of 90% MDD to prevent spontaneous combustion <br />and provide the strength required for stability of the waste bank. <br />6.5.1 says that Trautner should be contacted to observe the materials exposed, to identify any <br />potential sources of moisture that would require the installation of a subdrainage system. Has <br />Trautner evaluated the foundation since the CMW Backfill was removed? (Yes - the Division was <br />present at a site meeting with GCC and Trautner on 11 -Sep -2014.) The second paragraph of this <br />subsection addresses Trautner's monitoring of CMW placement, once construction of the waste bank <br />has commenced. The approach described is generally acceptable. Rules 4.09.1(11) and 4.10.2 address <br />the inspection requirements for spoil and CMW. Please note that 4.09.1(11)(4) requires that an <br />engineer (or representative) be on -hand during placement and compaction of fill materials. On this <br />Prepared by: R. Reilley October 2015 <br />File location: M:\Coal\rar\1MKingCoal\TR20 Page 4 <br />