My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV91831
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV91831
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:13:20 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:15:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/2/1997
Doc Name
MID TERM PERMIT REVIEW NEW ELK MINE BASIN RESOURCES INC C-81-012
Type & Sequence
MT3
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.
/
14
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
18. The original findings document issued for the New Elk mine states "The principle spillway <br />is gated, but the gate will be opened a calculated amount to allow for automatic dewatering <br />with a detention time of 24 hours." Does the permit indicate how much each gate will be <br />open at all times? If so, please refer the Division to that information. If not, provide the <br />appropriate permit information which addresses this issue. Unless all ponds can be <br />demonstrated to be over-sized, the outlet gates should always be open to allow self- <br />dewatering of the ponds. <br />19. Table 23 indicates elevations for the Emergency Spillways for three ponds as well as <br />elevations of the Crest of the Emergency Spillway. What is the difference? Are these not <br />the same point? Is the higher value the elevation of the pond surface with the emergency <br />spillway flowing at the design depth? Please clarify and correct if necessary. <br />20. The as-built certification for the RDA pond was located in Exhibit 20 of the permit. The <br />Division cannot located the as-built certifications for ponds 4, 5 and 6. Please submit copies <br />of the as-built certifications for these ponds. <br />21. The currently approved permit lacks the information required by Rule 2.05.3(8) for the <br />development waste pile located west of the main entrance. Both the text narrative and the <br />information in Exhibit 30 is inadequate. Please review this Rule and submit the informatim <br />as required. Also, part (9) of this Rule is "return of coal mine waste to abandoned <br />workings, not (10) as presently represented in the permit. <br />22. Review of the approved post-mining contour maps indicates that restoration of the numerous <br />drainages across the reclaimed areas has not been appropriately handled. Post-mining <br />contour maps are required for all disturbed areas, including the water tank area and the <br />Apache Canyon air shafts. Please submit post-mining contour maps for these areas at a 2 <br />foot contour interval. Cross-sections should be at the same scale to allow overlay for <br />volumetric calculations required for earth moving calculations. <br />23. The present plan for redistribution of topsoil does not clearly present the areas that will be <br />topsoiled as opposed to those areas that will not have topsoil re-applied. Additionally, the <br />topsoil pile east of the main entrance is represented as having a volume of 6,888 cy. <br />Division field measurements indicate a volume closer to 16,000 cy. The plan for <br />redistribution of topsoil should be clearly represented in the permit to indicate stockpile <br />volumes, location, and discrete identificationby name or code. All disturbed areas that are <br />to be reclaimed should be delineated on a map, clearly showing acreages and depths of re- <br />distribution, if it is an area to receive topsoil. <br />24. The permit text on page 2.05-51(b) refers to "test plot" production will be compared to <br />reference area production. What test plot does this refer to? Dces Basin mean reclaimed <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.