Laserfiche WebLink
<br />overburden will not be replaced above hollow fills." <br />It would be additionally beneficial, though not necessary for permit application approval, if <br />the post-mining topography map could include the locations of where the berm sections will <br />be left. This would help personnel from both Lorencito Coal Company and the Division <br />know during mining operations where portions of the outcrop ban•ier are to remain, and <br />where they may be removed. <br />72. The applicant's response to this concern is inadequate. The Division's original question <br />(March 3, 1997) stated that in the original permit text on page 2.05-40, it was proposed that <br />"underground development waste from fault crossings, overcast development, or roof rock <br />will either be deposited in underground gob rooms or be placed in the surface mine backfill" <br />Our original question asked for a copy of the MSHA/DMG-approved plan for the <br />underground disposal, or for the information required by Section 4.09.1(12) for disposal of <br />coal mine waste into excess spoil fills if the applicant did not wish to dispose of the waste <br />underground. <br />The applicant's initial response (April 25, 1997) was to leave language in the permit stating <br />that such activity (disposal of coal mine waste either underground or in the surface mine <br />backfill) would occur (third paragraph, page 2.05-40, revised 4/21/97), but that a map and <br />cross section for a coal mine waste bank would be submitted in the event disposal would <br />occur (fourth paragraph, page 2.05-40, revised 4/21/97). Plans for the placement of coal <br />mine waste into the surface mine backfill were provided (fifth paragraph, page 2.05-40, <br />revised 4/21/97) and found adequate. <br />The Division then responded (May 27, 1997) that the application needed to also contaln a <br />plan approved by MSHA that described the storage and disposal of coal mine waste into <br />underground workings. The applicant's subsequent response was "After contractors have <br />been selected, LCC will submit a plan to MSHA." <br />The Division will therefore stipulate that until an MSHA/DMG approved plan for the <br />disposal of coal mine waste into underground mine workings is incorporated into the <br />Lorencito permit, the Division withholds its approval of such mine waste disposal activity. <br />73. The Division's original question (March 3, 1997) requested more information pertaining to a <br />facility that would be needed for the sepazation of "shale or other extraneous material" from <br />the coal prior to loading. The applicant's response (April 25, 1997) acknowledged this <br />extraneous material would by definition be "coal processing waste", and stated that a <br />"breaker" would be used at the loadout for processing. The Division, in its May 27, 1997 <br />letter, requested a description of this breaker and designs for a coal processing waste bank. <br />The applicant, on it July 1, 1997 response provided this information. <br />From a telephone conversation on July 8, 1997, the Division now understands that the <br />applicant has decided against installing the proposed breaker, but wishes to permit the coal <br />processing waste bank as an underground mine development waste bank. The application <br />