Laserfiche WebLink
<br />proposed permit boundary. <br />98(c). The applicant's response indicates that the "Regulated Access Area" is shown on Map <br />2.05.3-4. Is isn't, however. This should be addressed. <br />98(d). Map 2.05.3-4 indicates a possible dwelling or public building within one-half mile of the <br />blasting area. This structure is located south of the proposed permit boundary, north of <br />the Purgatoire River, and near where the Cow Canyon 69Kv powerline will overlie the <br />CIG pipeline. What type of building is this? Does anyone reside or regulazly work <br />within this building (Section 4.08.4(3))? Who is the owner of the building (Section <br />4.08.4(4))? If this building is a dwelling or other type of occupied structure, the "Fly <br />Rock Travel Limit" may need to be reduced even further, as the travel limit may currently <br />be proposed closer to this building than regulatorily allowed (Section 4.08.4(5)). <br />98(f). Map 2.05.3-4 indicates that a building and a section of 10-inch natural gas pipeline will <br />be within one-half mile of the blasting azea. Section 4.08.2(1) requves the owners of <br />these structures to be provided with written notification explaining how to obtain apre- <br />blas[ing survey. Please revise the application to include a commitment that Lorencito <br />Coal Company will provide this notification to the owners of these structures at least 30 <br />days prior to the initiation of blasting. <br />99. The term "modified" remains on page 2.OS-39, therefore, the response is inadequate. <br />Please refer to the original question. <br />100. The applicant's response is adequate. However, the first sentence in Paragraph 5 on <br />revised page 2.05-37 bears additional comment by the Division. This sentence indicates <br />that warning and all-clear signals will be audible within 0.75 miles from the point of the <br />blast. From the northeastern limit of the blasting azea, this means that the signals will be <br />heard by most everyone residing or working in the vicinity of the Primero School. While <br />proposing to go beyond the 0.5 mile audible range required by Section 4.08.4(3} of the <br />Board's Regulations is commendable, Section 4.08.4(I)(a) allows the Division to restrict <br />blasting time periods "according to the need to protect the public from adverse noise". <br />It may be in the applicant's interest to reduce the range of audibility of the warning and <br />all-cleaz signals form the proposed 0.75 miles to 0.5 miles, to reduce the number of <br />possible future noise complaints from the public. <br />Rule 2.05.3(8) Oaeration Plan -Coal Mine Waste and Non-coal Processing Waste <br />102. The Division will stipulate the Lorencito permit with the condition that no Lorencito <br />generated coal mine processing waste may be disposed of in the New Elk mine Refuse <br />Disposal Arca until a technical revision to the New Elk permit has been submitted, <br />reviewed and approved by the Division. <br />Rule 2.05.4 Reclamation Plan <br />103. Final resolution of [his issue will be during the stipulation resolution with regazd to the <br />