ENFORCE35673 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-93-156 Notice of Violation C-93-156 was issued for "Failure to compact coal refuse to 90$ of maximum dry density and to determine if lifts of refuse had been compacted to 90~ of dry density". Larry Routten issued this NOV to Western Fuels Utah (WFU) for the Deserado Mine on December 16, 1993. He explained that the NOV was divided into two parts: 1) failure to test compaction in violation of Rule 4.10.4 (3)(c); and 2) failure to compact refuse in violation of Rule 4.10.4 (3)(b). The NOV applies to Refuse Disposal Areas (RDA) #2-3 and #4. Mr. Routten said compaction testing was conducted monthly through August, 1992. There were no records until July, 1993 leaving an eleven month gap with no tests. There were no records after the July, 1993 test. This results in sixteen months with only one compaction test. At RDA #2-3 all test results reported compaction at less than 90$. The last four tests of record for RDA #4 were: 1) March, 1992 showing compaction at 88-103$, 2) May, 1992 with compaction reported at 84-105$, mostly less than 90$, 3) August, 1992 with compaction reported at 82-91~, many results were below 90$, and 4) July, 1993 with compaction reported at 82-91$, all tests were less than 90$. With respect to the July, 1993 test results, Mr. Routten thought it was an area WFU had reconstructed and was the subject of a previous NOV. Murari Shrestha and Jeff Dubbert, representing WFU, provided some additional information. The moisture-density gauge was miscalibrated. After a correction was made, test results indicate the refuse in RDA #2-3 is acceptable. The RDA #4 readings were still low. WFU will retest the compaction in RDA #4. They conducted a pilot test on the refuse not meeting the 90$ compaction. It showed that two passes with a roller would achieve 90~ compaction. Additionally, Mr. Dubbert stated that WFU does not compact the refuse during the winter, for example from September, 1992 through April, 1993 it was not compacted. Furthermore, they questioned whether Rule 4.10.4(3)(c) applies to WFU since it references situations where a variance from maximum lift thickness and minimum required compaction. This is the only rule that requires compaction testing to verify compaction. The regulations do not specify a frequency requirement for compaction testing, the regulations only specify they have to achieve a 90$ dry density. I agree that the rules are unclear regarding the frequency of compaction testing, however it is clear there was a problem with refuse compaction.