REV11429 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regarding the refuse disposal minor revisions, I have told both Wayment and Stover that information regarding maximum quantity of material, and complete chemical and physical analyses of material from the Loma Loadout and McClane mine would need to be provided. I specified these requirements in the most recent McClane inspection report. I will get out incompleteness letters for both the McClane MR and the Roadside MR today. I was unable to get this done before I left on vacation July 3, and am still getting things sorted out post vacation (I did a veg bond release inspection at Chimney Rock Mine on Monday, so yesterday was my first day back). I also thought I would put in the incompleteness letters for the waste disposal MR's, that the approved waste pile reclamation schedule at Roadside would not be altered by the allowance for disposal of waste from Lodestar. On another matter, it turns out that Staark was working from an outdated version of the material balance table (fable 14-1) when he prepared the cost estimate, which accounts for a number of the discrepancies Stover identified. I'm faxing him the correct table now, which was updated via TR-32 and/or TR-35. I would swear that I had sent over the updated table before he did the estimate. I will also check with DOH regarding specifics on what information they have regarding asbestos at Roadside, and abatement requirements/costs. -Original Message- From: Berry, David Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 200170:39 AM To: Mathews, Dan Cc: Cheryl Linden (E-mail) Subject: RE: roadside train loadout Dan - I'm not sure what "larger legal issues" he is referring to.... I already told him that we can consider the reactivation of the loadout with Powderhorn remaining as the operator, or Lodestar can assume that piece of the permit altogether. It was my understanding that lodestar would use the loadout, but would not be deemed an operator. I told Stover that the loadout reclamation schedule would be suspended as long as the loadout was being use. We need a written commitment from Powderhom, that the reclamation schedule for the rest of the site will remain unchanged, and we need some very specific language about when the loadout reclamation schedule would retrigger. His submittal starts to address this, but should be more specific (CHERYL -I'll FAX a copy to you this am) I think we better be clear that the loadout only would come out of Permanent Cessation, but the rest of the site remains in permanent cessation to be consistent with the rect. schedule issue. The revised permit should state this. Also, you are correct re: the coal stockpile bonding issue. I suspect that the power plant next door would take any remaining coal if we gave it to them . Also, what is the staus of the refuse disposal MRS? Does this help? David --Original Message--- From: Mathews, Dan Sent: Wednesday, July 11,2001 9:22 AM To: Berry, David Subject: roadside train loadout I've talked to Stover regarding the MR regarding Lodestar use of the Roadside loadout that I received yesterday. I noted one error, where he referenced calendar year 2000 as "year 1 of the reclamation schedule". 2001 is year 1 of the schedule. Also, he told me that he asked Mark Wayment for a maximum tonnage figure for coal stockpile at the loadout, and Wayment indicated 50,000 tons. Stover will modify the application to address those items, but prefers to wait until we address some of the larger/legal issues. Such as I assume the need and if so the mechanism to identify Lodestar as operator. Also the acceptability of indefinite period of use by Lodestar and indefinite suspension of reclamation deadline for the loadout. If we approve the revision, I assume the official status of the operation will go from "Permanent Cessation" back to "Alive", but we would need to clearly specify that 2001 remains year 1 of the reclamation schedule for all areas except the loadout. Do you or Cheryl have any direction for me at this time? Let me know how you would like to proceed. Thanks.