1994-02-07_ENFORCEMENT - C1981017 (4)

Home Browse Search

r terraces until vegetation is well established on the slopes. Representatives of Mid-Continent Resources contested the violation for a couple reasons. First, in April of 1988 Gary Fritz, of OSM, was concerned about the pile stability. He issued a TDN because the drainage was directed over the outslope of the fill. Therefore, the terraces are purposely left uncovered so Mid-Continent Resources can maintain the inside ditches until vegetation is well established on the outslopes. Maintenance of the ditches requires the use of heavy equipment. To topsoil now would result in contamination and compaction of the topsoil by the maintenance equipment. It is not "practicable" to topsoil when equipment is needed for further maintenance. Second, the permitted reclamation plan does require the terraces to be topsoiled, but there is no time frame. They plan to wait until vegetation is well established on the upper slopes. Well vegetated slopes will greatly reduce the amount of ditch maintenance. Third, the Rules say topsoil shall be distributed following grading, but there are no specific time frames and they claim, the terraces will be topsoiled following grading. Fourth, the terraces were topsoiled at one time but the subsequent maintenance resulted in contaminated and lost topsoil. I conclude there is no violation. The stability of the refuse pile is critical and ditch maintenance helps to ensure this. I believe it is practicable to wait until the outslopes are well vegetated and ditch maintenance is minimal before the terraces are topsoiled. Topsoil is at a premium at the Coal Basin Mines and they cannot afford to risk the possibility of contaminating or losing any more of this valuable resource. NOV C-93-097 NOV C-93-097 was issued for "failure to maintain a temporary or permanent seal on a portal at the #5 Mine. Specifically, the block wall seal is not draining properly and grout has failed and allowed water to seep through the wall". Tony Waldron issued this NOV on June 17, 1993 citing Rules 4.07.2 and 4.07. 3. He was concerned about the water discharging through the grout. Also, the outlet plug was blocked. He felt this was an inadequate seal. Diane Delaney and Greg Lewicki contested the violation because they contended this was a temporary portal seal, not a permanent one. The purpose of a temporary seal is to prevent entrance to the mine, there is nothing in the Rules prohibiting water discharge. Some discharge was to be expected. This NOV was discussed at the end of a long day. In the conference the issue became whether this was a temporary or permanent seal. Nothing could be found in the permit one way or the other. Rule 4.07.2, Temporary Sealing, states ". . .shall be sealed before use and protected during use by barricades, fences, or other protective devices approved by the Division. These