ENFORCE23563 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

continue to make no sense, aze not required by the ahemative practice and, as such aze not generally performed. There is, however, one exception. Over the years, should a particular pile be located in close proximity to potential mine activides(most are not), it often makes sense to place a sign and on a number of occasions we have indeed done so. Similarly, although not required, over the yeazs we have also placed signs on reclaimed areas warning personnel to stay away from seeded azeas. Placing additional signs where appropriate to protect topsoil or reclaimed areas has been practiced at Colowyo. 1n fact, during the Division's November 1995 inspection it was requested that we place signs on the topsoil piles in question and we did so until we ran out of signs. The Inspector was informed of this and the fact that additional signs had been ordered. To comply with the NOV abatement procedures we have placed signs on the piles, however, we believe they are not required by the alternative practice. 3) Timing of Topsoil Piles The piles noted in the NOV consist of five distinct windrow azeas. The piles noted as "Sec. 11" and "Center of East Pit" were placed there in the fall of 1994 and the other three piles; "Piles East of Gulch A", "025 Substation" and "West End of East Pit" were just recently placed in the fall of 1995. In the fall of 1994 a number of additional windrow piles were also located in Gulch A and at the west end of the East Ph. During the normal course of 1995 reclamation activities, approximately 90% ofthe volume m these windrows was spread onto the adjacent reclaimed areas. The backfill of the auger mining area in the East Pit delayed the regrading of those adjacent contours and the spreading of the "Sec. 11" topsoil pile. The highest point of the regraded contours in the East pit was also not advanced and the spreading of the adjacent "Center of East Pit" topsoil pile was also delayed. Due to the complexities of backfilling the multiple seam pit, final determination that these small azeas of spoil advance would not be advanced was not realized until this fall Realizing this, and to address the DivisiOn'S concerns raised during the inspection, Colowyo submitted a Minor Revision to the Division to address rescheduling of the topsoil spreading until next yeaz when adjacent spoil is regraded and available. The MR acknowledged the delay in spreading the topsoil, requested an extension of the time frame for the spreadimg activity and proposed that signs be placed and supplemental seeding be applied to enhance the 50% vegetative cover already in place on the piles. We believe the submittal of the MR is consistent with the Division's expressed desire in the 1992 Findings Document noted previously to limit excess haulage and redistn'bution of topsoil and served to correct what amounts to little more than a routine "paperwork" issue.