REV105048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AD$QIIACY DOMG Concern No. 1. Question NO. 13 in our PAR letter dated July 31, 1992 referenced the Fish Creek boreholes(s). The concern was actually related to the reclamation plan for the Fish Creek ventilation shaft. Currently the plan called for placement of a concrete slab 3 feet below the surface followed by backfill, topsoil and seeding. this plan would not be appropriate, especially due to the large size (36") and depth (1,000') of this opening. All openings at the Fish Creek facility site will need to be completely filled in accordance with abandonment of water wells. This includes sealing 20 feet above and below any water bearing units penetrated by the holes. Please submit the appropriate permit pages to include these requirements in the reclamation plan. RESPONSE - The Division approved the above referenced plan as being adequate and in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Division. However, Twentymile is willing to modify the approved G plan to include sealing the borehole as per the above, or it may Dl completely cement the hole to within three feet of the surface. Page 2.05-55(b) of the permit has been modified to include this plan. Also, page 2.05-54(f)(14) has been modified to provide the bond resulting from the change in sealing plans. The bond reflects sealing the hole from bottom to within 3 feet of the surface with a cement plug. Copies of the revised pages are attached. DOMG Concern No. 2. Pond M, Pond K, and borehole facilities (including topsoil piles) were not identified as inventoried structures. The Division considers "structures" to include all man-made objects such as buildings, bridges, soil stockpiles, spoil piles, water holding and transportation facilities, roadways, pipelines, powerline, water wells, oil and gas wells. Rule 2.05.6 (6) (a) (ii) (A) requires a brief description of all structures. Response - Page 2.05 - 126 has been revised to incorporate the D above structures in the discussion. Copies of the revised page are attached. DOMG Concern No. 3. As required by Rule 2.05.6 (6) (e) (F) , no indication of the areal extent (on the ground surface) of the subsided area could be found on any of the permit maps. Please alter map 23a to clearly indicated previously subsided areas as well as projected subsidence areas. Response - Map 23A has been revised to show the areal extent of both the subsided areas. The subsidence boundary encompasses both ~~ previously mined and projected mining ares. Copies of the revised map are attached.