My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE24118
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE24118
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:04 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:37:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981025
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/3/1984
Doc Name
TEN DAY NOTICE 84-2-244-1 SNOWMASS COAL CO N THOMPSON CREEK MINE PN C-025-81
From
MLRD
To
OSM
Violation No.
TD1984020244001TV1
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 />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />David H. Getchea, Executive Director <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />DAVID C. ~HELTON, Director <br />Richard D. Lamm <br />Governor <br />July 3, 1984 <br />Mr. Robert H. Hagen <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />219 Central Avenue, N.W. <br />Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 <br />Re: Ten-Day Notice No. 84-2-244-1 <br />Snowmass' Coal Co.'s N. Thompson Creek Mine Permit No. C-025-81 <br />Dear Mr. Hagen: <br />The Division received your Ten-Day Notice response letter for the above <br />referenced mine on June 25, 1984. The letter expresses additional concerns <br />over certification of ponds at the North Thompson Creek Mine. Your letter <br />mentioned three concerns which we will to respond to: <br />The first item (paragraph 2) of your Tetter expressed concerns over the design <br />settling capacity of the coal preparation plant washdown ponds. Our response <br />is that there are no design criteria for preparation plant wash down ponds of <br />this type. These ponds are closed system ponds that never discharge. All <br />water is recycled through the wash plant. They are also a dual pond system, <br />meaning that when one pond fills with sediment the operator uses the second <br />pond. Both ponds are incised ponds that have been in used since at least the <br />mid 1970's with no record of having discharged or presented operational <br />problems. These ponds were reviewed by our office in consultation with OSM <br />(Denver office) and found to be in compliance with our Rules during the permit <br />review. It is, therefore, evident that their design and certification is in <br />compliance. <br />The second item in your letter (paragraph 3) pertains to the refuse site <br />pond. You point out that at the time of certification the pond was 3.7% under <br />total capacity. This is true, however, the 3.7% deficit is the result of <br />sediment that had settled in the bottom of the pond. The amount of sediment <br />is far less than 60% cleanout level required for the pond. There is no <br />regulatory or statutory reason to have the operator excavate 3.7% to obtain <br />exactly 100% of volume. Therefore, the construction and certification of the <br />pond is in compliance. <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (30:x) 866-3567 <br />~ III IIIIIIII IIII III I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.