My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35686
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35686
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:14 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:45:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/19/1993
Doc Name
FAX COVER
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
aE1VT;BY:Administration Office .10-18-83 :11:47AM :CYPRUS YAMPA VALLEY » 303 B32 9106~ti 3 <br />Pepe 2, Kent Gorham, October 19, 1993 <br />TCC Rasoonse <br />Review of the date by the Senior Engineer in charge of the subsidence monitoring, Mr. <br />Stewart, indicates that no significant or unanticipated subsidanca affects were noted between <br />the two dates referenced above (an essessmont with which you, Mr. Gorham, eDDeared to <br />concur with based upon our discussion of 9/24), According to Mr. Stewart, the intent of the <br />weekly monitoring was to develop a feel for the rata of subsidanca development, and his <br />review of the data prior to and following the weak in question indicated no loss of subsidence <br />date. Mr. Stawart's review of the date indicates that only monuments 3003 through 3008 <br />experienced a change in subsidanca rate during that time, and that the D-eceding and <br />following weeks' data manta the objectives of the monitoring program. TCC considers the <br />significance of this monitoring oversight to bs negligible based upon the date obtained. <br />pMG Concern' <br />31 Lina A-A' was not completely surveyed each week ea required by your permit. <br />Mr. Stewart has stated that the review of data indicates that the monitoring which wee <br />performed during the mining of the longwall panel in question adequately define9 the eurfece <br />eubsidenoe response. Ths permit was interpreted to mean that any point reasonably expected <br />to subside as a result of mining a particular longwall panel will be monitored rather then the <br />entire monitoring network. As a result, only that portion of line A-A' which wee 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 />~C Resoonsa <br />TCC wishes to remind the Division that there is no submittal timeframa requirement <br />associated with the C-82-066 aubsidene⢠report, end es such is not eubjeet to inclusion under <br />the NOV as outlined. <br />Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at your convanlance. <br />Sincerely, <br />Marcus A. Middleton <br />Environmantel Specialist <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.