Laserfiche WebLink
• Jerry Koblitz <br />Page 3 <br />July 22, 1997 <br />7/1/97 version of Map 2.05.4-1 will be the surface mine disturbance extent the applicant <br />wishes DMG to approve. Further, please commit to ensuring this same line will be <br />reflected in the revised Figure 1 of Exhibit 13. <br />66. The applicant's response is inadequate at this time. Our March 3, 1997 question asked <br />the applicant to resolve an appazent discrepancy between Figure 1 of Exhibit 13 and Map <br />2.05.4-1. This discrepancy was with regard to differences in t;se elevation of the tops of <br />the proposed excess spoil fills shown in these two maps. <br />The applicant provided a revised Map 2.05.4-1, and stated on page 9 of their July 1, 1997 <br />response that the tops of the fills would be below the lowest coal seam to be surface <br />mined, as shown on the latest edition of the map. <br />Map 2.05.4-1 does not show the current outcrop line of the lowest coal seam to be surface <br />mined. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain if the tops of the fills will be in fact be <br />below the elevation of the outcrop. It would be beneficial of Map 2.05.4-1 had the <br />• outcrop line added to it, especially since the tops of the fills range in elevation from 7030' <br />(Fi115) to 7140' (Fill 4). <br />67. The applicant's response to this question is inadequate at this time. The applicant has <br />indicated that the response is forthcoming. <br />From a telephone conversation with the applicant's representation of July 8, 1997, the <br />Division understands that CTL/Thompson will include in its revision of Exhibit 13 a <br />discussion of how the backfilled areas of the surface mine that will be constructed <br />between the valley fills will meet the regulatorily-required 1.3 factor of safety value. The <br />Division will therefore stipulate that the revised Exhibit 13 include such a discussion. <br />68. The applicant has indicated that its response to this question is forthcoming. The <br />applicant's response to this question is therefore inadequate at this time. <br />69. The applicant's response needs some additional clazification. The applicant's response <br />states that the berms "will be located along the surface mine perimeter in areas where fills <br />• do not extend below the lowest coal seam to be mined". The response seems to conflict <br />with the applicants response to Question 66, which states, "A revised Post-Mine <br />