Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jim Stover <br />August 9, 1996 -New App./Bowie 2 <br />Page 12 <br />63a) Response generally accepted. Please provide the specific designs when available, and prior <br />to permit approval. <br />63b) Will it be necessary to pump mine water to the surface? If so, at what rate? Have the <br />sediment ponds been designed to accommodate possible mine dewatering discharge? If not, <br />please revise the designs as appropriate. Please also ensure that all NPDES permitting <br />properly accounts for any possibility of mine water dischazge. <br />2.05.3(51 - Topsoil <br />64) Response accepted. Please review the Topsoil Salvage Volume table on page 2.05-34 to <br />ensure that the projected volumes are correct following adjustments made to rectify the "C" <br />horizon references. <br />65) Response accepted. <br />66) Response accepted. <br />2.05.3(6) -Overburden - 67) No further response required at this time. <br />2.05.3(7) -Coal Handling Structures <br />68) Additional response pending. Morrison-Knudsen will be providing geotechnical reports to <br />address facilities stability. As observed in /{27, above, the Division cautions BRL that <br />timing is essential. Permit approval may not occur until the geotechnical stability of the <br />proposed coal handling facilities has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Division. <br />2.05.3(81 -Coal Mine Waste and Non-Coal Waste <br />69) BRL's response to this item is acceptable. The Division continues to be concerned regarding <br />the potential implications of slope instability and soil expansion for the majority of the site. <br />However, the applicant should be able to compensate for any untoward manifestations of <br />rock fall or soil expansion at the coal processing waste facility. <br />Volume IV - "Coal Mine Waste Bank Final Desien For Bowie No. 2 Mine <br />70) The June 20, 1996 BRL letter states that Volume IV text will be revised to incorporate this <br />response. Please provide the revised pages. <br />2.1 WFSTEC clarified its observation that no surficial springs or signs of ephemeral streams <br />were noted within the footprint of the proposed waste pile. Its observation was based <br />