My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV96051
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV96051
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:20:52 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:55:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/5/1994
Doc Name
Remarks to MCCs response to 1st adequacy comments
From
DMG
To
MOUNTAIN COAL CO
Type & Sequence
PR5
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
4 <br />Permit Revision No. 5 - PAR 2 <br />July 5, 1999 <br />(joints) is being discussed, <br />should add this discussion to <br />it is clear what information <br />Page 2 <br />as opposed to faulting. MCC <br />the permit text to ensure that <br />is being conveyed. <br />The Division believes that the information required by Rule <br />2.04.6(3)(a)(iii)(C) is essential to approving this permit <br />application. MCC drilled numerous holes in the Jumbo Mountain <br />tract to be able to core and analyze for the required <br />information. The Rules require a chemical analyses to show <br />that the roof, floor, and coal seam will not produce toxic and <br />acid-forming materials, and should be provided. Assuming that <br />it will be the same as the current permit area is not <br />sufficient. <br />5. No further response required. <br />Hydrology (Rule 2.04.7) <br />1. How is instantaneous flow measurements and samples taken each <br />month in Gribble Gulch? This information should be added to <br />the permit. Given the inconsistent flow in Gribble Gulch, how <br />does MCC intend to show that the quality and quantity of <br />surface water has not been affected by mining? <br />2. The Division appreciates the clarification. No further <br />response is required. <br />3. Springs emanating through the colluvium would not be very <br />useful for identifying impact to the hydrologic regime. The <br />Division would like the opportunity to review the baseline <br />data for the Rollins sandstone spring, prior to making a <br />decision on MCC's response. <br />4. Springs emanating through the colluvium would not be very <br />useful for identifying impact to the hydrologic regime. The <br />decision on this response is dependent on #3 above. <br />5. No further response required. <br />6. MCC has not responded to this question adequately. The <br />Division requested maps of the piezometric surface of the B- <br />seam and the Rollins sandstone. These maps indicate not only <br />the elevation of the formation water but also the direction of <br />flow and assist the Division in estimating .the potential for <br />impacts to the hydrologic regime. While revised Maps loA and <br />11A are helpful, MCC should also submit plan view maps of the <br />Rollins piezometric surface. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.