My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV01245
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV01245
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:58:51 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:51:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/14/1997
Doc Name
WEST ELK MINE C-80-007 PERMIT REVISION NO 7 RECLAMATION COST ESTIMATE
From
DMG
To
MICHAEL BOULAY
Type & Sequence
PR7
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.
/
3
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
'~ _ <br />Please be advised that, as plans for the SGFA aze revised during the review process, the <br />Division may have additional questions prior to completing a cost estimate. <br />56. DMG requested a detailed description, with cross sections and maps, of the methods proposed <br />to seal the ventilation shafts. MCC responded with a general description and no cross sections <br />or maps. Please provide a detailed description, which includes illustrations, of exactly how <br />the shafts will be sealed. MCC states that a concrete seal will be installed on a steel structure <br />below the collar concrete. How will this structure be installed, what are the details of its <br />construction, what sort of equipment will be required? <br />MCC's proposal does not appear to be in compliance with the requirements of Section <br />4.07.3(1), which requires (for boreholes not completed to aquifers) sealing by replacing <br />cuttings or other suitable media in the hole and placing a suitable plug 10 feet below the <br />ground surface to support a cement plug or other media approved by the Division to within <br />3 feet of the ground surface. Please revise the text to include a plan for sealing the boreholes <br />in compliance with the referenced rule. In addition, MCC should include a proposed plan for <br />sealing the borehole, in accordance with Section 4.07.2(2) in the event that aquifers aze <br />intercepted. <br />57. DMG's original comment indicated there would be 80,000 CY of surplus material at <br />reclamation of the SGFA, and asked MCC to clarify an appazent material balance discrepancy. <br />MCC now estimates 168,000 CY of material will be brought in and used to develop the <br />SGFA, but does not include specific plans for redistribution of the surplus material, as <br />described in Comment 55. <br />58. MCC estimates the total SGFA disturbance will be approximately 62 acres. Based on Map <br />53B, Sylvester Gulch Facilities Plan, DMG measured a disturbance of 76.5 acres. Please <br />provide additional information, including a map depicting the disturbed area boundary, to <br />verify MCC's estimate of 62 acres. <br />59. The pre-mining and post-mining cross sections provided by MCC (Map 59A) use such a heavy <br />line to depict the reclaimed topography that there is as much as ten feet of elevation in the line <br />itself. The heavy line also obscures the pre-mining and post-construction sections. Please <br />provide a revised set of cross sections which are accurate and legible. <br />60. MCC notes that the net cut volume for the substation is 77,000 CY, and that the material will <br />be used as fill for other areas. In order to accurately determine the cost to reclaim the area, <br />we need to know the amount of material which will be taken to each site. <br />61. MCC provided adequate cross sections and the locations of those sections in its March 11, <br />1997 submittal. <br />62. Please see the Division's comments on Comment 55. <br />63. MCC's response is acceptable, with the exception of the information required by Comment <br />55. <br />64. MCC's response is adequate with their March 11, 1997 submittal; the vertical alignment of <br />all roads is now shown on the maps within Exhibit 69. <br />65. For the purposes ojthe cost estimate, this response is adequate (mitigation will be outside of <br />the permit area). Someone still needs to track the approval of USACE. <br />66. There is still some discrepancy between MCC's estimate of disturbed acres and that which the <br />Mike Boulay 2 April 14, 1997 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.