REV11714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Candy Thompson 4. Division records minor revisions. commitments into facilities reloc original permit. - 2 - February 3, 1987 show 13 stipulations, 3 technical revisions and 7 NCEC should incorporate all associated changes and the permit. Of particular importance is the jtion TR, which changes large portions of the II. Environmental Information The archaelogical study referred to on page 3-12 should be included in an appendix. 2. The proposed monitoring plan on page 3-74 should be revised to reflect Stipulation No. 3. I have enclosed a copy of my listed requirements for Coal Ridge. III. Operation and Reclamation Plan 1. On page 4-2, reference is made to a hydraulic mining test conducted in 1981. New Castle should discuss how this activity was permitted, and the status of reclamation and bonding for the project. 2. Throughout Section 4 the proposed refuse disposal area is discussed. As this facility has not been approved, it may be appropriate for NCEC to delete all references to the proposed pile. Clore importantly, I feel that it is imperative for NCEC to obtain approval fora refuse disposal area prior to permit renewal. It is my opinion that it may have been inappropriate to permit this operation (initially) without approval for the refuse area, insofar as the mine cannot successfully operate without such approval. In addition, the refuse area is needed as a disposal site for rail spur ballast. Therefore, the loadout cannot be built until the refuse area is approved. Again, without a loadout the operation is not feasible. I feel that these issues need to be resolved, and the mine needs to have a complete operations plan prior to permit renewal. 3. The cut and fill volumes presented in Table 4.1-3 and TR-O1 indicate an excess of materials, based on a 7.3 swell factor. NCEC should address the actual excess produced during construction to confirm this swell factor. In addition, the Division was unable to verify the cut and fill volumes presented. Figure TR-8, which shows cross sections of the facilities area, depicts twice as much fill versus cut, and does not agree with the total volumes included in the permit. This situation must be corrected so that accurate volume estimates are included in the permit. 4. In several areas of the permit, a diversion ditch above the portals is mentioned. These references should be deleted as per TR-O1. Pages on which the diversion is mentioned include 4-26, 4-57 and 4-83. Calculations for the ditch should be removed from Appendix 4.2-3. 5. The narrative on page 4-44 should be revised to indicate the current position of the facilities with respect to the Vulcan Ditch, as per TR-O1.