GENERAL44436 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Division explained to Ms. Coulter that MSHA reports were not submitted, nor are any required. Rule 4.07.3 requires aportal-sealing plan that is in compliance with MSHA rules. EFCI has such an approved portal-sealing plan in the permit. Additionally, EFCI provided an independent engineer's report documenting mine inspections prior to portal sealing. In response to Ms. Coulter's question about mine water pumping, the Division explained the mine's hydrologic monitoring program during the informal conference on 15 January 2003. The EFCI monitoring program includes monitoring mine water levels and water discharges from the mine site. An annual hydrology report is submitted by EFCI and reviewed by the Division that documents all water monitoring results. This discussion was provided as information to Ms. Coulter. Hydrologic issues, other than surface water runoff, are not part of the Phase I bond release criteria. In the 15 November letter, Ms. Coulter also questioned what materials were buried in the portal areas. Specifically, she had concerns that tires, desks, cinder blocks, trash, black sludge, scrap metal and concrete were being buried. In the informal conference on 15 January 2003, Ms. Coulter showed a video she recorded during the reclamation process with demolition debris and a fire at the portal area disposal site. The Division explained that EFCI was permitted to dispose of non-toxic demolition debris in the low areas in front of the portal seals pursuant to Rule 4.11.4(2). The Division did not observe any unauthorized materials being placed in the permitted disposal areas during site inspections while reclamation was being performed. Disposal of solid waste generated by a mining operation within the permit boundary is in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Act (Section 30- 20-102(4)). Ms. Coulter also questioned the Magpie Creek diversion and the stability of the channel realignment in the 15 November letter. The Division explained that the diversion was designed and constructed in accordance with Rule 4.05.4. The approved diversion was constructed so that water would flow azound the facilities azea as opposed to through the facilities area (the original configuration). The Division monitors the diversion during monthly inspections and no problems have been noted to date. The remaining concerns raised by Ms. Coulter in the 15 November letter were similar to Ms. Saunders' concerns regazding the size of the refuse pile, the soil sampling, the drainage and final grades at the Southfield Mine Permit No. C-1981-014 SL-2 Findings 9 25 April 2003