My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL38536
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL38536
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:58:16 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 9:44:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/1/1992
Doc Name
Midterm Review Findings Document
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
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.
/
11
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
1' <br /> <br />• C) Table 10, Spring #20: Santistevan Flume, in the 1991 Annual <br />Hydrology Report, shows that no sample was taken for 1991. Because <br />longwall mining may already be in this area, this sample point is <br />important. Please explain why no sample was taken. Does the <br />operator have any recent sampling data for this monitoring point? <br />D) Please update Exhibit 10, Annual Hydrology Report. <br />E) Please update Exhibit 22, NPDES Permit, if applicable. <br />F) On page 19 of the 1991 Annual Hydrology Report, it is stated that <br />the water in well PAW-7 had similar characteristics to the mine <br />discharge water at the Golden Eagle Mine. An examination of the <br />data does suggest this. Is there any correlation between the water <br />in PAW-7 and the water in Pond 3, especially when mine water <br />discharge has been routed to Pond 3 in the past? To what degree is <br />the AVF being impacted by routing mine discharge to a pond that <br />lies within an AVF, such as Pond 3 and Pond 5? <br />G> On page 19 of the 1991 Annual Hydrology Report it is stated that <br />the water in well PAW-6 had elevated levels of several constituents <br />and that this could indicate that mine discharge to Ciruela Canyon <br />was being detected at PAW-6. To what degree is the AVF being <br />impacted by these elevated levels of constituents? Could the water <br />in PAW-6 also be affected by the coal refuse pile? <br />H) Please add GE-003 and GE-004 to the map "Monitoring Locations" in <br />the Annual Hydrology Report. <br />4. Reclamation <br />A) Please update any reclamation in Exhibit 26, Rill and Gully Plan. <br />5. Bond <br />A) Please update the Bond Summary in Exhibit 19, if needed. <br />B) The coal stockpile at the raw coal reclaim system needs to be <br />bonded. The Division policy is that sufficient bond must be posted <br />to cover the cost of either burying or transporting to an approved <br />site one half of the maximum tonnage capacity. The operator must <br />submit the plan for the Division's approval. <br />Section V - Bonding Summary <br />The following Corporate Surety is being held for the Golden Eagle Mine: <br />Bond No. 5700586 - $1,056,578.20, dated June 1, 1991. Surety Rider to Bond <br />No. 5700586 increasing the amount of bond liability to $1,200,000.00, <br />effective August 17, 1992. <br />The 1988 Findings Document for Permit Renewal No.l required, through <br />Stipulation No. 48, that a bond of $890,578.00 filed with the Division. <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.