Laserfiche WebLink
• COMMENT: <br />4. The discussion pertaining to non-coal waste disposal has been e <br />expanded upon and is presented on Pages 12-52 and 12-53. The last <br />pa ragraplr on Page 12-52 states that "Proposed surface topography in <br />this area indicates surface water drainage will be directed through <br />the disposal area". PCC should discuss the possibility of surface <br />drainage eroding away the four foot cover to expose the waste, and <br />the consequent effects to water quality. The Division believes <br />that Peabody Coal Company should route this drainage around the <br />M~aste disposal area to avoid future problems. <br />RESPONSE: <br />Peabody committed to a minimum backfilled cover of eight feet over the <br />solid v:aste disposal area. Peabody feels this amount of cover to be <br />more than adequate to prevent surface drainage erosion from contacting <br />and exposing the waste materials. <br />• Concerning routing the postmine surface drainage around the site, it <br />would be Peabody's preference to do so; however, original topography <br />indicates surface drainage did pass through this area and the material <br />excavated during the mining process, and proposed to be graded during <br />the reclamaf.ion process, reflect similar conditions. The discussions <br />previously provided should provide the CMLRB with adequate commitments. <br />A meeting with the Division September 30, 1986 clarified this issue and <br />determined that the present description in Tab 12 adequately reflects <br />Peabody's commitments. <br />COMMENT: <br />5. The discussion pertaining to "Surveying methods to achieve <br />approximate original contour (AOC)" was dropped in the latest <br />submittal. PCC should add this discussion back into Tab 12. <br />RESPONSE: <br />• As discussed at the meeting with the Division on September 30, ].986, <br />27 <br />