2019-10-18_REPORT - M1978208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Y ARMS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT:Concerns in re COMPLIANCE RE BENCHING within HIGHWALL 12/6/18 MLRB 1978-208 Shaffers Crossing ((ii) 2018 3`d quarter MSHA DAILY WORKPLACE EXAMS—HIGHWALL INSPECTION REPORTS) (EXHIBIT 8) in conjunction with (iii)GEOLOGIC SAMPLING DATA RESULTS(EXHIBIT 9a through 9e) made up of(I.CORE DRILL DATA, II. GEOLOGIC HAND SAMPLING, III.WATER WELL DRILLING CUTTING DATA where recovery was feasible, IV. FACE EVALUATIONS OF EXPOSED MINED HIGHWALL SECTIONS in active mining areas and V. OTHER") d) Operator submits their own 2019 AFFADAVIT OF INSPECTION (EXHIBIT 10) by independent Consultant verifying the existence of the Benches as indicated in the Topographical Survey, Bench Cross sections and other independently verified by BROCKMAN, Steve, (2019) BEI& ASSOC INC, (12/5/18) e) Operator submits various cross section studies and extrapolations and interpolations,and conjecturally offers the 3D rendering which none quantifiably demonstrates the highwall and bench confutation in a graphical 3D wire mesh rendering or through the use of interpolated sections to provide the viewer with a perspective of the highwall in section to include the benches. (EXHIBIT 11a through 11f). f) Operator submits by way of indication that a visual inspection of the highwall exposed surface from an oblique or flat angle by the casual observer can be misleading in that the areas of the exposure which are largely characterized by the foliated migmatized gneiss together with the convoluted gneissic fabric make the specific bench development difficult to discern with the naked eye. In addition the innovative blasting techniques employed by the Operator in the second and final rows of blasting against the highwall further'confuse'a visual inspection by deliberately obfuscating the mechanical symmetry of the bench configuration, and this can mistakenly lead the casual observer to determine that there is a more upright appearance to the quarry than is in fact the case,and that can be demonstrated mathematically as the function of the crest of the highwall to the toe of the highwall is found to be 68 degrees,at its most narrow point,whereas the Brierley report indicates that the highwall is still well inside the safe operating parameters at 73 degrees,and thus well within the compliance limits. In fact in the attached ODP graphic(2006)and TOP(2018) (Falcon)the toe of the highwall is 102'-0 L.F from the crest of the highwall (offset distance)and the change in elevation from 7945 '-0"to 8145'-0" is 200'-0" resulting in a 51%highwall,substantially less than the minimum. This is further demonstrated by photographing the highwall from the side at 90 degrees to the foliation and along strike. (EXHIBIT 12) By doing so the bench configuration is more pronounced and the benches are immediately apparent. Lastly the Operator submits external corroboration of this by other inspectors where in 2008 MSHA inspectors cited the Operator under Part 46 for highwall violations,indicating that the Operator was to keep a minimum offset distance of not less than 30'-0"from the toes of the highwall,following an even that another quarry. Operator appealed decision and citation and ease successful on appeal and Federal inspectors reversed their decision when Operator was able to demonstrate that the highwall was significantly more stable than commensurate quarries of its type locally and elsewhere and would not experience the same type of failure that precipitated the event elsewhere;this action confirming engineering calculations by Operator and consultant that demonstrated the competency of the highwall configuration ad ability to stand almost vertical with a better than 96 degree of confidence. (r-squared coefficient of correlation)