Laserfiche WebLink
permit. The second waste pile, the "upper waste pile, " would be <br /> significantly larger and be located on the bench above the portal area, <br /> and as previously mentioned will not be constructed during this permit <br /> term. <br /> In the fall of 1985, Mountain Coal Company submitted a permit revision <br /> application requesting approval of a permanent lower waste pile to be <br /> located adjoining the mouth of Sylvester Gulch. This application <br /> originally requested approval to permanently dispose of 1.77 million <br /> tons of coal processing waste within the proposed structure. The <br /> original design phased the refuse pile into five specific design <br /> layouts (Phases I through V) , including recompaction and <br /> reconfiguration of temporarily stored waste material. The pile was <br /> constructed according to this original phased design until the Phase IV <br /> configuration. A revision application was submitted in November 1992, <br /> which eliminated Phase v and reduced the pile to 1.2 million tons. The <br /> proposed storage volume represents a 15.7 year life. The proposal <br /> included the combination of a 28,500 cubic yard topsoil pile during <br /> Phases I through III and a maximum of 45,000 cubic yards of non-toxic <br /> soil cover (subsoil) stockpile. Topsoil removed for Phase IV will be <br /> stored on the 50-foot bench constructed in Phase III. In addition, an <br /> access road was constructed in Phase Three and a portion of the <br /> Sylvester Gulch access road to the main fan portal was relocated. <br /> Underdrains have been constructed beneath the pile. Piezemetric ground <br /> water monitoring will be conducted. Slopes of the pile will be <br /> maintained at 2 .5H:1V. <br /> The permit revision application included a thorough slope stability <br /> analysis performed in accordance with the prudent state-of-the-art <br /> slope analysis for the original design in 1985, and for the redesigned <br /> pile in 1992. Material strength values were derived from on-site <br /> sample testing and nearby previously reported test results. Piezometer <br /> observations, falling head parameter tests and analytical projections <br /> were completed in order to predict appropriate phreatic surfaces within <br /> the proposed waste structure. Data for the 1992 analysis utilized data <br /> collected for the 1985 analysis. <br /> The applicant has committed to the installation and quarterly <br /> monitoring of three sets of survey monuments to monitor slope stability <br /> of the waste structure. One row of monuments has been installed <br /> parallel to the state highway adjoining the toe of the waste pile on <br /> 100-foot intervals. Two additional rows of monuments have been <br /> installed perpendicular to the highway on the facial slope of the pile <br /> at 50-foot interval. spacing. The operator has also committed to <br /> quarterly reporting of visual inspections of the topsoil, non-toxic <br /> soil cover stockpiles, and refuse pile. <br /> For the Lower Permanent Waste Pile, drainage will be controlled by a <br /> series of drainage ditches, terraces, and a sedimentation pond. Since <br /> the pile will be constructed in phases, the drainage system will also <br /> be built in phases. All disturbed area drainage from the topsoil <br /> piles, subsoil stockpile and waste pile will be routed to the <br /> sedimentation basin at the northwest corner of the lower waste pile <br /> (MB-2R) . <br /> The design incorporates several permanent drainage features into the <br /> plan. After final reclamation of the pile, the terraces will be <br /> barricaded with rocks or berms to prevent access to the pile. However, <br /> the terraces will still function to control runoff from the pile. A <br /> hundred year diversion ditch has been constructed around the perimeter <br /> of the pile to permanently collect any runoff from the site and safely <br /> route it to the natural drainage system. For a discussion of the <br /> hydrologic effects of the waste pile on both surface and ground water, <br /> see the hydrology :section in the Probably Hydrologic Consequences <br /> section of this findings document. <br /> 42 <br />