Laserfiche WebLink
s <br /> <br />stated that the Division "sees no problem with Bear Coal Company using the U.S. Steel <br />loadout at Somerset ... " It appears from this letter that the Division granted a conceptual <br />approval of this practice. However, the NOV was issued for failure to amend the permit <br />application to reflect this. <br />During a September 26, 1991 inspection of the Somerset Mine, a video recording was made <br />of the haul truck traffic at the intersection. The taping and presence of the inspector were <br />kept secret from the operator in an attempt not to influence the schedule of any cleanup <br />of the intersection. This video will be presented during the October Boazd hearing. <br />The vantage point for the video taping was from the Somerset Cemetery located on a ridge <br />overlooking the town of Somerset. None of the coal haul trucks were full, and no coal was <br />noted falliag off the trucks. However, when the intersection dried after the washing, a dazk <br />grey trail was noted on the road. Tltis material apparently was tracked on the tires of the <br />haul trucks from the Somerset access road. The material is visible on the road in the azeal <br />photograph. <br />During the 3 hour observation, the mine workers washed the road 3 times. A fire hose from <br />the silo was used to spray the road and a broom was used to sweep the road clean. The <br />washed material ran off into the pazking lot of the post office just across the street from the <br />intersection. The road stayed wet for an additional 45 minutes after washing. <br />The operator has been allowed to continue hauling coal at the Somerset Mine, within the <br />abatement conditions specified in NOV C-91-013. This allowance is consistent with Rule <br />5.03.2(2)(b) which states, in part, that: <br />"Notices of Violation shall fix a reasonable time, not to extend beyond 90 days, <br />within which abatement shall be accomplished;... " <br />A cessation order has not been issued, to date, because the Division has not found <br />compelling evidence that the coal hauling activity has created "an imminent danger to the <br />health or safety of the public", nor is it "causing or it can be reasonably expected to cause <br />significant environmental harm to land, air, or water resources". Pursuant to Rule <br />5.03.2(1)(a), these conditions must exist before a Cessation Order can be issued. <br />The Division's jurisdiction regazding air quality protection is defined by Rule 4.17 which <br />states that: <br />3 <br />