Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C'.U H B\C 82056\R N 0 3\011400 adq. doc <br />oltlaroo <br />"Twentymile did not respond to discussion of the development main under Rou[! County Road No. <br />27. Twentymile Coal Company measured mine water inflow when developing the 6R gateroad in <br />[he E '/• of Sec[ion 29. Please include a discussion of this observation in the text. " <br />The Twentymile Coal Company cover letter dated November 12, 1999 states, "The text was <br />modified to discuss the mine water inflow during the 6 Right Gateroad development." No <br />information was provided as to what text page was revised. Revised pages 2.05-182 through 2.05- <br />184.2 were reviewed to see if the information was revised in this text. Although the text does <br />discuss observed conditions in other locations of the Eastern Mining District, discussion of the <br />mine water inflow during development of the 6 Right gateroad was not included in these pages. <br />Please include a discussion of the observed inflow during 6 Right gateroad development, or if this <br />discussion was included elsewhere, please state the specific page where this information can be <br />found. <br />i) Page 2.06-25 has been revised appropriately. <br />j) Twentymile Coal Company's response is acceptable. <br />24.b) Twentymile Coal Company revised page 2.04-54 appropriately. <br />c) Twentymile Coal Company revised page 2.04-55 appropriately. <br />25. Twentymile Coal Company revised page 2.05-58 to address the Division's question. <br />28. Twentymile Coal Company revised pages 2.05-2 and 2.05-3 appropriately. <br />33. Revised page 2.05-13 addresses the Division's concern. <br />34.c) Twentymile Coal Company revised pages 2.05-81 and 2.05-82 appropriately. <br />35. Twentymile Coal Company did not respond to this item. The pemut is not out of compliance due <br />to this omission, however the text remains confusing. Permit page 2.05-16 and 2.05-17 continue <br />to discuss "the five-yeaz permit term" and "the subsequent five-yeaz pemut term" without any <br />reference to the timeframes of the pemut term being discussed. The reader does not know if the <br />discussion is pertinent to 1994-1999 permit term, or some other permit term. Inclusion of the <br />dates of the pemut term being referenced would clarify this text. Please include the dates of the <br />permit term being referenced. <br />36. Pages 2.05-15, 2.05-26, 2.053, 2.05-89, and 2.05-98 were al] corrected to reflect the correct <br />reference to the reclamation cost estimate. <br />39.6) Page 2.05-66 was not submitted in the November 1999 submittal. The reference to Map 24 on <br />this page remains inaccurate, though not out of compliance. As stated in the Division's adequacy <br />letter dated Mazch 2, 1998, "Pemtit page 2.05-66 indicates that Map 24 shows topography. The <br />current Map 24 does not contain contour elevations. Please correct this reference or provide <br /> <br />