My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12438
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12438
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:52 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:30:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
6/21/1982
Doc Name
DORCHESTER 1 MINE FN C-014-81 SECONDARY ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
MLR
To
DORCHESTER COAL CO
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.
/
17
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
_12_ <br />3. In order to conform with the mguirements of the subsidence regulations <br />(Rule 2.06.6(6) and 9.20), the applicant will have to project the effects of <br />subsidence upon the waste pile, which is considered to be a "structure". The <br />applicant's projections of limited impact should be extended to include a pre- <br />diction of subsidence magnitude. The National Coal Board methodology is commonly <br />employed for this type of prediction. The magnitude of subsidence is necessary <br />in order to determine whether the 4-foot by 10-foot subdrain will be sufficient <br />to allow for possible differential settlement due to maximum projected subsidence. <br />Further, the applicant will be~required to designate specific locations for <br />the proposed subsidence monumentation. The amended application should include <br />a typical sketch of the monument installation proposed to be used. These subsi- <br />dence monuments should be substantial and capable of resisting the effects of <br />normal traffic and meteorological phenomena. <br />4. The applicant should provide certification demonstrating that the underdrain <br />has been installed as specified by the applicant's geotechnical consultant within <br />the original application. <br />2.05.4 - Reclamation Plan <br />A. Scheduling <br />1. A time gap of 8 years is shown between 1992, the year of termination <br />of rtu:ning, and 2000, the starting date for reclamation. This time gap <br />is unnecessary. The reclamation schedule must be revised. <br />2. The application shows the sediment ponds being reclaimed before <br />vegetation becomes reestablished. Rule (4.05.6(9)) requires that the <br />sediment ponds remain until vegetation is established. The order of <br />reclamation projects must be 'revised. <br />3. The reclamation schedule must be revised. Each structure and area <br />to be reclaimed must be addressed in relation to other areas being <br />reclaimed. For example, until the upper sediment pond is reclaimed, <br />the access roaB to the upper area must be left open to ensure proper <br />maintenance. <br />B. Bonding <br />[when reclamation costs are evaluated within the Division, certain <br />assumptions are made. First, all costs are based upon a private <br />contractor under the supervision of the Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />performing aII work required. Second, there is no salvage value for <br />any structures or equipment. Furthermore, detailed calculations for <br />reclamation activities are evaluated using the Cat. Handbook - Edition <br />11 or I2, and the Rental Rate Blue Book for construction equipment. <br />In the light of these evaluation criteria, the reclamation costs presented <br />on page 204 are inadequate. A detailed cost analysis for each phase of <br />reclamation must be presented, taking into account alterations in the <br />reclamation plan as suggested in this adequacy letter. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.