GENERAL37758

• Permit No: C1984065
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 3/12/1987
• Doc Name: Midterm Review Findings Document
• Permit Index Doc Type: Findings
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mid-Term Review
Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine
I. Introduction
This document presents the results of the Division's mid-term review of the
Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. This review was conducted to fulfill the requirements
of Rules 2.06.2,.3,.5,.7, 2.08.3 and 3.02.2(4). Rule 2.08.3 requires that the
Division conduct a review of each permit issued, prior to its mid-term. As
the permit was issued for 3 years only, the mid-term is at 1 1/2 years. Based
on the review, for good cause shown, the Division may require reasonable
revision or modification of the permit provisions to ensure compliance with
the Act and Regulations. Rules 2.06.2,.3,.5 and.7 require that experimental
practices, mountain top removal, variances from AOC, and variances from
contemporaneous reclamation be reviewed by the Division. The Coal Ridge No. 1
Mine does not have any operations under these categories. Rule 3.02.2(4)
requires that the Division review the amount of bond and the terms of
acceptance at the mid-term.
The mid-term review consisted of a detailed review of the Coal Ridge No. 1
Mine permit. The Division also reviewed subsequent revisions and stipulation
responses to insure that all permit commitments and conditions were being
followed. Hydrologic monitoring data was reviewed to assess the discussion of
hydrologic impacts. Specific issues of hydrologic monitoring are contained
under separate cover discussing the 1986 Annual Hydrologic Report.
II. General
1. The application form (page 1-1) and the information on company officers
(page 207) must be updated. In addition, all references to Storm King
Mines throughout the permit should be changed to reflect the new name
of New Castle Energy.
2. On page 2-9, New Castle states that they requested an exemption from
air quality permits and a deferral on their NPDES permit. This
statement should be revised to reflect the current situation, and the
proper permit numbers should be included in page 2-20 through 2-26.
3. The maps for this permit need to be totally revised. On many maps the
scale is inappropriate, requiring 3 maps to show information which
would be better shown on one (1). Also, the use of shading and arrows
on some maps is confusing. These maps should be redrafted for better
clarity. Finally, all maps must be updated to reflect revisions and
other changes. I believe that a thorough revision could reduce the
number of maps by one-half and provide better information.
4. Division records show 13 stipulations, 3 technical revisions and 7
minor revisions. NC EC should incorporate all associated changes and
commitments into the permit. Of particular importance is the
facilities relocation TR,,which changes large portions of the original
permit.