My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE30965
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE30965
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:42:50 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:49:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/22/1996
Doc Name
MOUNTAIN COAL CO NOV C-96-013
From
MOUNTAIN COAL CO
To
DMG
Violation No.
CV1996013
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Michael Long <br />July 16, 1996 <br />Page 2 <br />2. Stockpile Relocation <br />Mountain Coal Company's independent contractor recovered topsoil and suitable cover <br />material from the lower refuse pile to the maximum extent practical. Figure 2.0E <br />accompanying Exhibit 51 shows two stockpiles atop the refuse pile during its reconfiguration, <br />one of which was for the recovered topsoil. The figure had some errors, including showing <br />the topsoil stockpile extending beyond the existing edge of the top of the lower refuse pile. It <br />became apparent on the morning of June 12, the third day of the reconfiguration project, that <br />the lack of space atop the refuse pile would not allow all topsoil to be placed in a single pile. <br />When the Division inspected the mine on the afternoon of June 12, Christine Johnston of <br />Mountain Coal Company asked the Division to issue a field revision to allow the placement of <br />topsoil in a second stockpile atop the refuse pile. The Division hesitated, not because of any <br />apparent concern with the environmental consequences of the relocated stockpile, but because <br />of a disinclination to grant a field revision and to discuss further other stockpile options <br />already presented by Ms. Johnston. <br />Due to the Division's inspection schedule and agenda, i.e. visit to Mautz' cabin, MCC <br />personnel had no reasonable ability to communicate the Division's concern prior to start of <br />work the next day. Mountain Coal Company's independent contractor, unaware of any issue <br />concerning the relocated topsoil stockpile, began placing topsoil at a second location when it <br />began work at 6:30 the next morning. The stockpiled materials were selectively placed on a <br />stable surface, where they would not be disturbed by mining operations. Cf. Division <br />Regulations § 4.06.3(2). Mountain Coal apologizes for not communicating the Division's <br />concern to its contractor. All topsoil atop the refuse pile has now been consolidated in a <br />single stockpile. An as-built drawing of this stockpile will be delivered to the Division as part <br />of the application for a minor revision. <br />No environmental injury resulted from temporarily placing topsoil in two stockpiles rather <br />than one. In the past, the Division has recommended field revisions to address minor and <br />practical operational issues. This stockpile issue could have been resolved with a minor field <br />revision, as the relocation of the stockpile was clearly an operational issue. Given that the <br />event is entirely absent adverse environmental consequences, it should not be the basis of an <br />NOV. <br />3. Subsoil Recovery <br />Subsoil had previously been distributed over portions of the refuse pile as anon-toxic, non- <br />combustible cover. Mountain Coal Company's contractor recovered as much cover material <br />as was reasonably practical prior to beginning work on the the ramp down to refuse pile <br />bench. To better access the bench, the contractor constructed a ramp from the top of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.