My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12255
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12255
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:36 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:28:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Name
LORENCITO CANYON MINE PERMIT REVISION EXHIBIT 11
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.
/
15
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
Jerry Koblitz <br />Page 4 <br />July 22, ]997 <br />Topography Map...shows fills below the lowest coal seam to be mined." Additionally <br />confusing is the statement in the recently-revised page 2.05-] 0 that the berm will be left <br />in place in areas not bounded by fills, which would seem to indicate that in areas bounded <br />by fills a berm would not be left. <br />To address this issue satisfactorily, the Division requests the applicant to revise the <br />sentence on page 2.05-10 from "... in azeas not bounded by hollow fills." to "...in areas <br />where overburden will not be replaced above hollow fills." <br />It would be additionally beneficial, though not necessary for permit application approval, <br />if the post-mining topography map could include the locations of where the berm sections <br />will be lefr. This would help personnel from both Lorencito Coal Company and the <br />Division know during mining operations where portions of the outcrop barrier are to <br />remain, and 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 <br />that "underground development waste from fault crossings, overcast development, or roof <br />rock will either be deposited in underground gob rooms or be placed in the surface mine <br />backfill". Our original question asked for a copy of the MSHA/DMG-approved plan for <br />the underground disposal, or for the information required by Section 4.09.1(12) for <br />disposal of coal mine waste into excess spoil fills if the applicant did not wish to dispose <br />of the waste underground. <br />The applicant's initial response (April 25, 1997) was to leave language in the permit <br />stating that such activity (disposal of coal mine waste either underground or in the surface <br />mine backfill) would occur (third paragraph, page 2.05-40, revised 4/21 /97), but that a <br />map and cross section for a coal mine waste bank would be submitted in the event <br />disposal would occur (fourth paragraph, page 2.05-40, revised 4/21/97). Plans for the <br />placement of coal mine waste into the surface mine backfill were provided (fifth <br />paragraph, page 2.05-40, revised 4/21/97) and found adequate. <br />The Division then responded (May 27, 1997) that the application needed to also contain 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 "Afrer contractors have <br />been selected, LCC will submit a plan to MSHA." <br />"fhe 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.