My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-06-01_REVISION - C1996083 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2015-06-01_REVISION - C1996083 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:01:16 PM
Creation date
6/1/2015 12:43:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/1/2015
Doc Name
2nd Adequacy Review No. 2
From
Bowie Resources, LLC
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR98
Email Name
JDM
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Name of Addressee <br />Page 5 <br />Date <br />BRL Response: Please see revised Volume IX certification. <br />Division Response: This item has been adeqately addressed. <br />11. Division Initial Comment (3/11/2015): Page 4a of the approved PAP illustrates the changes to <br />Gob Piles #2 and #4 that have been approved under various revisions. Please update this diagram <br />to reflect changes made subsequent to TR -76. <br />BRL Response: Please see revised Page 4a. <br />Division Response: This item has been adequately addressed. <br />12. Division Initial Comment (3/11/2015): Page 5 has been revised to include the East and North <br />expansion proposed under TR -98. The text indicates that no extension of the underdrain is <br />necessary for East and North expansion. According to Section A -A' (Figure 1), the pile is being <br />extending further up valley. Please explain why no extension is necessary. <br />BRL Response: Figure 2 as referenced on page 5 states that the underdrain would be extended <br />if seeps were/are encountered. No seeps have been encountered. The original underdrain as <br />installed was done in an effort to be conservative. No seeps were encountered, not have there <br />been since the original underdrain was installed. Nonetheless, it makes sense to add the <br />underdrain hatch and directions to Maps 1-3 and Figure 2. Please see revised Map 21-3 and <br />figure 2. <br />Division Response: Figure 2 and Map 21-3 were revised to show the extension of the underdrain <br />up the valley, as requested; however, the text on the map directs that the extension will be <br />made only if seeps are encountered. This zone of Gob Pile #2 qualifies as a Valley Fill <br />configuration, bringing the requirements of Rule 4.09.2 into play. Subsection (2) of this rule <br />requires that subdrainage systems shall be constructed along the natural drainage system, from <br />the toe to the head of the fill. (Any associated lateral drains are to be constructed if areas of <br />seepage are found.) Please revise the map text to show that the underdrain will be <br />extended, as required. <br />13. Division Initial Comment (3/11/2015): On Page 6, in the first paragraph, the disturbed area for <br />Gob Pile #2-4 has been revised from 58.0 (approved) to 50.9 (proposed). Please provide an <br />explanation for this decrease. <br />BRL Response: Please see revised page 6. A revision to the approved disturbed area has been <br />corrected and reverted back to the approved acreage. <br />Division Response: This item has been adequately addressed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.