Laserfiche WebLink
information regarding blasting operations is located in Volume 11, Tab 14 of the permit <br />application package. <br />SP submitted a revision to the permit application to establish maximum allowable ground <br />vibrations from blasting, as a result of damage to private property, including oil tanks and <br />an oil well. SP was to maintain peak particle velocities at the oil well site of five inches <br />per second (ips) or less, and utilized a seismic monitor at the well site to verify maximum <br />peak particle velocities. SP also increased the borehole column stem in areas where mud <br />seams were encountered in the upper strata. These plans were implemented within 1,000 <br />feet of the Meridian Oil Well. <br />VII. Disposal of Excess Spoil <br />There are no excess spoil disposal areas associated with this operation. <br />VIII. Coal Mine Waste Banks <br />There are no coal mine waste banks or coal refuse piles associated with this operation. <br />IX. Coal Mine Waste <br />No coal mine waste or coal refuse remain on the site. <br />X. Backfilling and Grading <br />The application states that the mining plan for the Seneca II -W Mine was developed in <br />conjunction with the mining plan for the former Seneca II Mine. The pit progression <br />design was based on standard mining practices, tried and proven at the analogous <br />Seneca II Mine. The backfilling and grading plan is found within Volume 13, Tab 20. <br />The reclamation schedule, including a request for a variance from the contemporaneous <br />reclamation requirements of Rule 4.14 is contained within Volume 12, Tab 19. <br />The applicant completed projections of overburden bulking, in order to project <br />post -mining topography within the mined area. The projections included within the <br />original application were completed prior to submittal in 1982. Subsequently, in <br />connection with operations at the former Seneca II Mine, the applicant has completed <br />topographic observations of reclaimed land. These aerial observations have determined <br />that the actual bulking factor slightly exceeded the original projection (19.8% in the <br />operator's terminology, versus 15.3% projection). <br />In completing its review of the amended application, the Division converted the <br />applicant's analytical projections into an analytical format more familiar to the Division. <br />The applicant projected an average overburden swell factor (loose swollen overburden <br />volume divided by bank overburden volume) of 1.32. <br />W. <br />