Laserfiche WebLink
the discussion into "TR 96-2~. Section 1-l i1/lining Area ", with the following page (2.0~-/89) <br />discussing subsidence moni[oring ojthe Eastern Mining District. No revision was made !o page <br />2.05-188. The permit is not out of compliance with [he lack ofrevi.sion to this discussion, but text <br />remains confusing and disjointed Since Section I ~ Mining Area is a purl of the Eastern ~Llining <br />District, please include the discussion of it wish the overall Eastern Alining District di.scz[ssions <br />instead of partitioning it out as n separate mining aren. <br />Twentymile Coal Company appropriately revised page 2.05-188 as requested by the Division. <br />22.h) The Division's adequacy letter, dated January 14, 2000, asked, <br />The Twenrymile Coal Company cover letter dated November 1 Z, 1999 states, "The test was mod~ed <br />to discuss the mine water inflow during the 6 Right Cateroad development. " No information was <br />provided as to what text page was revised. Revised pages 2.O.i-182 through 2.O.i-18d.2 were <br />reviewed to see if the information was revised in this text. Although the text does discuss observed <br />conditions in other locations of the Eastern Mining District, discussion of the mine water inflow <br />during development of the 6 Right gateroad was not included in these pages. Please include a <br />discussion of the observed inflow during 6 Right gateroad development, or if this discussion was <br />included elsewhere, please state the speck page where [his information can be found. <br />Twentymile Coal Company's cover letter dated, January 15, 2000, states, "The information was <br />submitted previously and it can be found on page 2.05-] 84.4" <br />The Division has not received a revised page 2.05-184.4 in any of the Pemut Renewal No. 3 <br />submittals. However, the Division was able to find the requested discussion of the mine water inflows <br />in Section 2.04.6: Geology Description. This information is found on page 2.04-] 6.2 (rev. 3/ 17/98, <br />approved in PR-04). Inclusion of the information on page 2.04-16.2 adequately resolves the <br />Division's concern. <br />~ 35. The Division's adequacy letter, dated January 14, 2000, asked, <br />Twentymile Coal Company did not respond to this item. The permit is not out of compliance due to <br />this omission, however the text remains confusing. Permit page 2.05-16 and 2.0~-17 continue to <br />discuss "the five year permit term "and "the subsequent five year permit term "without any reference <br />to the timeframes of the permit term being discussed The reader does not know if the discussion is <br />pertinent to 1993-1998 permit term, or some other permit term. Inckcsion of the dales of the permit <br />term being referenced would clarify this text. Please include the dates of the permit term being <br />referenced <br />Twentymile Coal Company provided revised pages 2.05-16 and 2.05-17 with the appropriate <br />corrections. <br />X39.6) The Division's initial question, in the adequacy letter dated Mazch 2, 1998, pertained originally to text <br />found in the last two sentences of existing permit page 2.05-66. Twentymile Coal Company's April <br />1999 RN-03 adequacy response submittal proposed revising some text on existing permit page 2.05- <br />66, which, in rum, shifted the last two sentences of text on existing permit page 2.05-66 onto proposed <br />pemvt page 2.05-66.1. <br />The two sentences the Division is referring to aze, "As shown on Map 24, Surface Facilities, the <br />C:\J H B\C820561R N03\020100resp.doc <br />