2011-09-22_ENFORCEMENT - C1982056 ‎(4)‎

• Permit No: C1982056
• IBM Index Class Name: ENFORCEMENT
• Doc Date: 9/22/2011
• Doc Name: Response to Questions & Comments on Abatement Plan ‎(Emailed)‎
• From: Jason Musick
• To: Dustin Czapla
• Violation No.: CV2011005
• Email Name: JDM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Musick, Jason
From: Musick, Jason
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Czapla, Dustin
Cc: Hernandez, Daniel; Shuey, Steve
Subject: RE: Twentymile Coal, LLC - Foidel Creek Mine (C -82 -056), NOV CV- 2011005 Abatement
Plan
Thanks Dustin. I am going to put together an preliminary adequacy review letter of the proposed plan and get it out to
Twentymile Coal (TC). I will include the Mineral Program's concerns identified in your email. With regard to your
questions, as far as I know:
1) I am not sure if TCs survey of the material included the material that has previously been backfilled in the pit. I
will address it.
2) See 1 above, also I will request that the material be segregated based on the potential landowner /permit holder
and operator conflict.
3) TC will be required to contact the Division upon completion of the removal process and Step 3 of the abatement
process will not be considered completed until confirmation of the removal is observed through an inspection
conducted by DRMS.
Thanks again,
Jason
From: Czapla, Dustin
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:59 AM
To: Musick, Jason
Cc: Shuey, Steve; Hernandez, Daniel
Subject: RE: Twentymile Coal, LLC Foidel Creek Mine (C -82 -056), NOV CV- 2011005 Abatement Plan
Hello Jason,
Just a couple questions /comments regarding Twenty Mile Coals's (TC) abatement plan:
1) Abatement Step 1 requires that TC determine how much of the waste material is present at the sites, and
that this step has already been completed. At the Deakins Pit, how have they determined how much of
the material has already been backfilled into the pit slopes, or have they only addressed the stockpiled
material that we observed during our inspection?
2) Abatement Step 2 states that the existing pile at the Deakins Pit will be transported to the Ross Pit. Is
this only referring to the stockpiled material, or does this also include the material that has already been
backfilled into the pit slopes? The backfilled waste material at the Deakins Pit will also need to be
removed. According to Steve Baker (Deakins Pit operator) the waste material was used to backfill much
of the northern pit slope. Also, Minerals would like to have the waste material either segregated at the
two gravel pits separately, or have all of the material returned to the coal mine and separated there. We
do not want the waste material transported between the two gravel pits. The Bower Brothers are not the
landowners nor the permit holder for the Ross Pit, so in order to minimize potential conflict with the
landowner /permit holder, we do not want to approve further importation of this material to this pit.
3) Before TC or their contractor removes the waste processing equipment from the gravel pits, we would
like to require DRMS inspections of the sites to ensure that all of the waste material has been removed
i