My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE30781
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE30781
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:42:46 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:45:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/19/1993
Doc Name
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
From
CYPRUS YAMPA VALLEY COAL CORP
To
DMG
Violation No.
CV1993137
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.
/
3
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
6EiVT;BY~Administration Office .10-18-83 ~11~47AM CYPRUS YAMPA VALLEY + 303 632 810616 3 <br />Pepe 2, Kent Gorham, October 19, 1993 <br />TCC Resoonae <br />Review of the data by the Senior Engineer in charge of the subsidence monitoring, Mr. <br />Stewart, indicates that no aipniflcant or unanticipated subsidence affects were noted between <br />the two dates referenced above (an assessment with which you, Mr. Gorham, appeared to <br />concur with based upon our discussion of 8/24). According to Mr. Stewart, the intent of the <br />weekly monitoring was to develop a feel for the rate of subsidence development, and hie <br />review of the data prior to and following the weak in question indicated no loss of eubaidence <br />date. Mr. Stewart's review of the data indicates that only monuments 3003 through 3008 <br />experienced a change in subsidanCe rate during that time, end that the preceding and <br />following weeks' data manta the objectives of the monitoring program. TCC considers the <br />eipnificance of this monitoring oversight to be nepllglbl• based upon the data obtained. <br />QMG Concern <br />3) Line A-A' was not completely surveyed each week as required by your permit. <br />Mr. Stewart has stated that the review of data indicates that the monitoring which was <br />performed during the mining of the lonpwell penal in question adequately defines the surface <br />subsidanCe response. The permit was interpreted to mean that any point ressonebly expected <br />to subside se a result of mining a particular lonpwall penal will be monitored rather than the <br />entire monitoring network. As a result, only that portion of line A-A' which was reasonably <br />expected to subside was monitored during the Panel 5 advance. <br />DMG Issue <br />4) Additionally, the semi-annual submittal was perceived by the Division to be tardy, having <br />bean received by the Division in its final form almost 3 months after the and of the reporting <br />period. <br />TCC Resoonae <br />TCC wishes to remind the Division that there ie no submittal timefrema requirement <br />sssociatad with the C-82-066 subsidence report, and as such is not 8ubjeet to inclusion under <br />the NOV as outlined. <br />Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at your convenience. <br />Sincerely, <br />/~I'~ <br />Marcus A. Middleton <br />Environmental Specieliat <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.