My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV08567
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV08567
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:09:09 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:54:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/7/1993
Doc Name
SENECA II MINE C-80-005 TR 26
From
DMG
To
PEABODY WESTERN COAL CO
Type & Sequence
TR26
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.
/
2
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 />3. Item 17 of our February 12, 1993 letter requested that PWCC explain why hydrologic <br />modeling was based on the use of precipitation data for May through October, or that <br />PWCC change the assumption to a value based on total annual precipitation. Later <br />discussions between PWCC and CDMG personnel resulted in an agreement, in the <br />interest of more conservative designs, to use a value based on total ammual precipitation. <br />CDMG agreed to reevaluate the modeling to determine if the higher precipitation <br />values would require redesigning of any of the structures included in TR 26. Based on <br />our modeling results and the current dimensions of the structures, we will not require <br />that PWCC redesign any structures. We would like to note, however, that future designs <br />should be based on annual precipitation data for the entire year. <br />4. Item 18 of our letter requested the dimensions for the ditches that were included in the <br />submittal. PWCC provided that information with the exception of the new bone yazd <br />ditch. Please include the dimensions of that ditch on Page 7-6-3-8. <br />5. Item 27 of our February 12, 1993 letter requested that PWCC submit designs fora 100- <br />year storm diversion ditch around the Wolf Creek fill. PWCC did not furnish the design <br />on the basis that the diversion would not be constructed until 1998, and so it would not <br />be constructed during the current permit term. Our concerns are: 1) Rule 4.09.2(7) <br />requires that a diversion around the fill, capable of handling a 100-year storm event, be <br />in place, and 2) Rule 2.05.4(1) requires that the approved reclamation plan include a <br />demonstration that compliance with all other environmental performance standazds will <br />be achieved. We aze unable to determine if a 100-yeaz diversion is in place now, and <br />will be in place at the time of reclamation. There is currently no demonstration in the <br />approved permit application that shows this information. Please provide the Division <br />with a demonstration that surface water runoff from a 100-year event would be diverted <br />away from the fill now and after the area is reclaimed. This requirement is based on <br />Rules 449.2(7) and 2.05.4(1). <br />6. Item 30 of our February 12, 19931etter requested additional information regarding the <br />storm water routing for the two bone yards and the office area PWCC indicated that <br />more information would be available after additional monitoring had been completed. <br />Was the rainfall sampling conducted? If so, what were the results, and how will PWCC <br />address storm water routing and sediment control for those areas? <br />[f you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />X Susan L Burgm er <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />c: Barbaza Pavlik, CDMG <br />SLB\100793.WP <br />ary en t 2 cto er , <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.