PERMFILE55696

• Permit No: C1981014
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/11/2001
• Section_Exhibit Name: EXHIBIT 09 COMPARISON OF REFUSE AND SOIL SUITABILITIES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

L~
the CMLRD at Rule 4.06.2 TOPSOIL wherein ft is stated that sufficient soil
must be removed to 'ensure productivity consistent with the approved post
mining land use' or at Rule 4.14.3 (1)(B) COVERING COAL AND ACID- AND
TOXIC-FORMING MATERIALS wherein it states that soil cover in an
'adequate depth for plant growth' shall be reapplied. These requirements
then should be compared with the standards mandated by Rule 4.10.4(4)
COAL PROCESSING WASTE BANKS -CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS,
wherein it is mandated that the regraded refuse materials °shall be covered
with a minimum of 4 feet of the best available non-toxic and non-combustible
material...'. Scientfically, there appears to be no justfication for this
requirement. Rule 4.10.4(4) reveals that 'the Division may allow less than
4 feet of cover material based upon physical and chemical analyses which
show that the requirements of 4.15 will be met.' Since 25 percent of the
soils in the refuse area have total soil depths less than 14 inches and 50
percent of the area has soil depths less than 21 inches it seems that
replacement of 48 inches of cover material is excessive in light of the scientific
evidence available. This issue was discussed by the OSM in detail in the
Federal Register of March 11, 1979 page 15212 wherein it states: 'the
regulations require that only the original topsoil removed from the waste
disposal site must be redistributed. Where the topsoil is thin, nontoxic spoil
material can be used to achieve adequate depth of cover.'
• The "field trials' required under Rule 4.06.2 and 4.15.6 are inappropriate
as the primary means of determining the cover soil requirements necessary
to satisfy the requirements of Rule 4.14 which very clearly state that "physical
and chemical analyses' are sufficient to demonstrate that less than four feet
of cover are appropriate.
The central issue in evaluating the four foot cover requirement for refuse
materials should focus on whether or not the refuse materials are inferior in
quality to the 'nontoxic spoil material" that must make up the difference
between the amount supplied by the topsoil and that necessary to obtain the
four foot thickness. Since a statistical comparison has demonstrated that the
overall suitability of the refuse materials is superior to that of the topsoil
medium as a whole, this comparison should suffice in satisfying the
requirements of Rule 4.14 in demonsVating that the refuse materials from the
Southfield Mine are indeed 'the best available" materials to be used to reclaim
these sites.
The uRimate determination regarding the amount of cover material
necessary for the final reclamation of the Southfield Mine refuse materials
hinges on the most limiting qualities of the refuse and associated cover
materials. The final criteria depends on the definkion of "the best available
non-toxic and non-combustible material...'. This issue is not easily resolved.
The CLMRD uses total combustible solids as an index to potential
combustibility. Unfortunatey no reliable standards exist on how to interpret
these values. There are no set suspect levels for the TCS test. Perhaps it
• is best to state that no 'self-sustained fire' has occurred in the past seven
years on the refuse materials at the Southfield Mine or on any of the old
refuse piles from either the Jack O'Lantern or Red Arrow coal seams in this
43