My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV93364
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV93364
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:14:42 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:30:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/29/2003
Doc Name
Request for Support (Memo)
From
Byron Walker
To
Dan Mathews
Type & Sequence
PR4
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.
/
7
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
Rule 2.06.9(3) No permit shall be issuedfor any operations covered by 2.06.9 unless the Division or <br />Board finds, in writing, that in addition to meeting all other applicable re yuirements of these Rules, <br />the operation will be conducted in compliance with 4.23. <br />This memo may meet this requirement, but probably the Division should prepare a separate <br />traditional Findings of Compliance document. <br />4.23.1 Scope. This Section establishes environmental protection performance standards in addition <br />to those applicable performance standards in Rule 4, to prevent any unnecessary loss of coal <br />reserves and to prevent adverse environmental effects from auger mining incident to surface mining <br />activities. <br />With one exception (my interpretation), the application appears to provide for the prevention of any <br />unnecessary loss of coal reserves. My interpretation engages a conflict in the rules. Although <br />required by subordinate sections of this Rule, I think leaving 250-foot-wide plus undisturbed aeeas of <br />coal violates the "prevent any unnecessary loss of coal reserves" part of this scope. However, the <br />application is incompliance with the subordinate rules. The application provides for the prevention <br />of adverse environmental effects. <br />The 250-foot-wide plus requirement makes sense, and would be applicable in my mind, if <br />highwall or auger mining was being accomplished from an outcrop or the surface, and one <br />wanted to retain access in undisturbed ground from the surface or entrance face to coal reserves <br />behind the extent of highwall or auger mining. It does not make sense if the entries are buried by <br />a backfilled, deep pit. I do not envision any mining operation that would make use of such <br />(buried) blocks of undisturbed coal for access to mineral reserves remaining after the highwall <br />and planned strip mining operations are completed. <br />Robert Shevling on September 30, 2003 indicated during a telephone call with Walker that he <br />would like to recover the undisturbed blocks of coal resources. <br />If the Division elects to waive the requirement for undisturbed areas of coal, recommend the <br />pages of the permit application package (PAP) be amended to clearly reflect such approval, <br />and the application revised accordingly. <br />Rule 4.23.2 Performance Standards <br />Rule 4.23.2(1) Any auger mining associated with surface mining activities shall be conducted to <br />maximize recoverability of mineral reserves remaining after the mining activities are completed. <br />Each person who conducts auger mining operations shall leave areas of undisturbed coal to <br />provide access for removal of those reserves by future underground mining activities, unless the <br />Division determines that the coal reserves have been depleted or are limited in thickness or <br />extent to the point that it will not be practicable to recover the remaining coal reserves. The <br />Division shall make such determination only upon presentation of appropriate technical <br />evidence by the operator. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.