My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL31240
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL31240
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:48:35 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 6:57:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/13/1982
Doc Name
Stip 2, 43 - review of responses
From
MLR
To
ARCO COAL CO
Permit Index Doc Type
STIPULATIONS
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.
/
3
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
<br /> <br />Ms. Paige Seville -2- January 13, I982 <br />I. ARCO Coat Company has incorrectly stated that 0.1 acre-feet of sediment <br />per acre of disturbed area was used to calculate sediment storage for the Zoad- <br />out sediment pond. By the Division's calculations, 2,285 cubic feet of sediment <br />storage is required for 0.295 acres of disturbance rather than 8 cubic feet. <br />ARCO must supply further justification that the figure of 24 cubic feet is <br />adequate or revise the plan to allow for adequate sediment storage. <br />II. It appears, after review of the pond dimensions, that the pond size is <br />inadequate. The pond dimensions from drawing C-006A are roughly 38 feet Long, <br />9 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep. A pond with vertical sides and these dimensions <br />would have a capacity of 855 cubic feet, so a pond with sloping sides would have <br />even less capacity. The pond at the Zoadout must have a capacity of 1,577 <br />cubic feet using ARCO's figures, and 2,838 cubic feet if 0.1 acre-feet per <br />acre is used to calculate sediment storage. ARCO Coal must supply supporting <br />information to verify that the sediment pond has adequate capacity for sediment <br />storage and washdown storage below the primary dewatering device, and additional <br />capacity for the SO-year, 24-hour inflow without discharging from the emergency <br />spillway. <br />3. The Division has previously reviewed your October 27, 1982 response to the <br />requirements of Stipulation No. 19, dealing with the design of the future upper <br />waste mck pile. Your response included an Exhibit 3.2.9.B entitled "Prelim- <br />inary Stability Evaluation, Upper Waste Rock Pile, Mt. Gunnison Coal Mine, for <br />ARGO Coal Company", and a statement in the form of a revised page to the permit <br />application stating that the waste pile would not be required during the first <br />permit term. This being the case, the Division replied on December I0, I982 <br />that the requirements of Stipulation No. 14 were not applicable to the initial <br />5-year permit term and that ARCO Coal would not be required to comply with the <br />terms of Stipulation No. 19 during the initial 5-year permit. <br />However, in order for the Division to be able to approve the waste pile during <br />the future permit term in which the pile is to be constructed, ARCO Coat must <br />follow the recommendations contained within the preliminary stability evaluation. <br />This will entail conducting some additional field work in the near future, <br />primarily involving the installation of an appropriate surface monitoring system <br />in accordance with recommendation No. 8 of the preliminary stability evaluation. <br />This recommendation indicates that prior to the driving of any mine entries <br />beneath the proposed area of the upper waste pile, an appropriate surface <br />monitoring system should be installed to detect any deformation of the upper <br />bench or the slope between the crest of the bench and the portal entries. <br />Because ARCO is currently installing the mine entries and will commence the <br />development of sub-mains shortly thereafter, it is essential that the moni- <br />toring system, as recommended by Geo-Hydro Consulting, Inc., be installed prior <br />to the driving of the entries beneath the pile. Therefore, the Division's <br />acceptance of Exhibit 3.2.9.8 wilt be contingent upon ARCO's submission of, <br />our approval of, and ARCO's installation of the surface monitoring system. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.