REV13052 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Welt Page 5 52. This map provides good visual information. Please include and reference the map where appropriate in the text. 53. Why was the Archaeology Map in Volume 4 deleted and replaced with Map 7? The map in Volume 4 shows where the survey was done and Map 7 does not. 54. This response is acceptable to the Division. 55. This response is acceptable to the Division. 56. This response is acceptable to the Division. 57. The reclamation procedures for the surface facilities in the new document are very vague and not detailed. The information in the old document contains very good data for bond calculations. If this information is outdated it should be updated in as much detail to be contained in the new permit document. 58. If this information is outdated, it should be updated with information that is just as detailed. 59. The specifications on the portal bench and portal structures should not be omitted from the permit document. The detailed information will assist in bond calculations. If this information is outdated it should be updated with as much detail. 60. If this information is outdated, it should be updated with information that is just as detailed. 61. The Division is unable to locate the Density and Gamma Ray Logs in Exhibit 12 of the new document. The information found in Exhibit 12, for some wells does not match the information contained in Volume 7 of the old document. 62. The letter and maps concerning the roof cracks in Volume 13 should be included in the new document, as the Division feels this information is essential to the history of the West Elk Mine. II. Information Found in the New Permit but not in the Old Permit 1. This response is acceptable to the Division. 2. This response is acceptable to the Division. 3. This response is acceptable to the Division. 4. This response is acceptable to the Division.