ENFORCE32761 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ I ~ anyone from the Division has actually met with affected individuals in Somerset or made any investigation during actual working conditions. A technical revision to Permit No. C-91-022 and paving a portion to the access road which is being used as a haul road are proposed as a means to abate the violation, I. The Proposed Abatement is Inadequate The purposed abatement is inadequate to assure that the rights of the Moschners and the rights of the Moschners and others in Somerset are fully protected from the adverse effects of coal mining operations as required by 34-33-102, C.R.S. While paving a portion of the access road may be of some help in reducing dust, the problem of coal falling off trucks and being pulverized and tracked onto Highway 133 by coal trucks going between the Bear No. 3 Mine and Somerset Mining Company's facility has not been addressed. Coal from overloaded trucks will continue to fall onto the access road, be washed onto Highway 133 and blown about by traffic on the access road and the highway. II. Coal Trucks Must be Properly Loaded and Covered Permitting use of the former access toad as a haul road in effect gives Mined Land Reclamation Board (NLRB) approval to allowing 200 coal trucks trips (100 round trips) per day between the Bear No. 3 Mine and the Somerset Mining Company facility. Even excluding the public highway issues, adverse effects are "- ---- created by overloaded trucks and dust blowing from uncovered loads while the trucks are still on NLRB permitted facilities. For a proposed abatement to have any measurable effect, coal trucks must be properly loaded and covered to prevent spillage. Although the investigation report presented to the NLRB on October 4, 1991 suggests that the State Highway Department should be responsible for coal hauling activities on the State Highway, the conditions giving rise to the problem are created on the mine site. It therefore seems improper for the NLRB, having specific authority to regulate coal mining activities, to require those affected to appeal for relief to agencies having less specific charge to deal with secondary effects which could be eliminated with proper regulation. CONCLUSION The proposed abatement is not based on observations of actual working conditions at the Somerset Mining Company's facility. Therefore, it fails to address an aspect of the coal dust pollution problem caused by Somerset Mining Company, that is, overloaded and uncovered coal trucks. -2-