Laserfiche WebLink
~. <br />w <br />were drilled and compaction testing was performed on several lavers in each hole. Two holes <br />were drilled on the top of the coal refiise pile, near the crest of the outslope, and one was drilled <br />on the outslope of the coal refuse pile. The compaction test results (A copy of the report is in the <br />NOV file) showed that all tested layers within the bottom 20 foot section of the coal refuse pile <br />had the required compaction, except for three layers in the borehole that had been drilled in the <br />coal refuse pile outslope. Although the operator's consultant stated that the results confirmed that <br />the compaction of the first 20 feet of placed coal refuse was in compliance, the Division believed <br />otherwise. <br />The Division decided to issue the NOV for three reasons (A copy of the Division letter, dated <br />April l ~, 1999, is in [he NOV file). The first reason was failure to achieve the required <br />compaction in one section of the coal refuse pile. The Division believed that there was evidence <br />of inadequate compaction of three layers in the borehole drilled on the pile outslope. The second <br />reason was failure to have approved geotechnical designs for the addition of subsoil in with the <br />placed coal refuse material. The permit application only contained geotechnical stability designs <br />for coal refuse. The addition of subsoil in with the coal refuse would change material properties <br />and, therefore, might change the geotechnical stability demonstration. The third reason for <br />issuing the NOV was failure to perform any compaction testing for the bottom 20 feet of placed <br />material. The Division believes that compaction testing should have been performed on the first <br />few lifrs in order to ensure the proper compaction of the toe material and in order to confirm the <br />reliability of the compaction procedure being utilized on site. ' , I1~ I~ ~' <br />Several factors should be known for the proposed civil penalty assessment. First, there is no field <br />evidence of geotechnical instability of the coal refuse pile. The coal refuse pile is now about 50 _ <br />feet high at the outslope crest. Jim Pendleton and I were on site and no problems with , < , ' .,' <br />geotechnical instability were seen. Second, this coal refuse pile is not being placed on a flat ~ ~' <br />surface (please refer to Drawing No. 95266-03 that is attached). The coal refuse pile, which is <br />projected to be about 200 feet high, is being placed on a hillslope, with the toe of the pile resting <br />on fill material from an old railroad track bed. Third, Old Highway 133 is about 200 feet south of <br />the toe of the coal refuse pile, although there is a wide bench and a sedimentation pond between <br />the coal refuse pile and the highway. The consultant for Bowie Resources has submitted <br />quarterly coal refuse pile certifications that state that "a failure of the pile would probably not be <br />a hazard to human life" (A copy of the 1st Quarter 1998 coal refuse pile certification is in the <br />NOV file). <br />This NOV was issued on April 1 ~, 1999. The NOV was received at the mine on April 19, 1999. <br />Therefore, the last day for the Division to receive additional information from the operator <br />concerning the proposed civil penalty assessment was May 4, 1999. The Division has not <br />received any additional comments. The proposed civil penalty assessment is due on May I5, <br />1999. <br />If you need any additional information, please let me know. I appreciate your assistance in this <br />matter! <br />c:1ms97\bowie2\pcpnov4 <br />