Laserfiche WebLink
-9- <br />ti on IY -Permit Yariances <br />The Division previously granted two variances at permit renewal: variance from <br />culvert spacing and variance from topsoil salvage in steep sections of the <br />Wolf Greek mining area. <br />The variance from culvert spacing is no longer required based on a change to <br />Rule 4.03.1(4)(el(vi) effective June 26, 1985. <br />Peabody was first granted a variance from topsoil salvage via approval, on <br />September 25, 1984, of the Wolf Creek Area Permit Revision (PR-Ol). This <br />variance applies to some slopes steeper than 40 percent encountered in the <br />4lolf Creek Area as identified on Exhibit 9-3. This variance approval was <br />reaffirmed upon permit renewal. Since no information has been submitted to <br />modify the previous approval and reaffirmation, the Division reaffirms the <br />approval of a variance in topsoil salvage, as allowed by Rule 4.D6.2(2)(a). <br />Section V -Decision to Require Revision <br />The following items pertain to various portions of the Seneca II Mine permit <br />which will need to be revised and/or updated to reflect the current status and <br />condition of this site. Peabody should submit a technical revision pertaining <br />to all of the items addressed below no later than April 30, 1990. <br />1. Peabody should update Tab 3 -Adjudication File as necessary to include <br />changes in company officers and directors (Attachment 3-7) and ownership <br />(Page 3-12 ). Also include any water well permits from the State <br />Engineer's Office on page 3-27 and update licenses on pages 3-26 and 3-27 <br />accordingly. Attachments 3-8 and 3-9 also need to be updated. <br />2. Several questions arose from the review of Tab 7, Volumes 4, 5, and o' of <br />the permit application, Volume, 1 Tab 7 and Volume 2, Tab 12 of the <br />Permit Renewal Application, and the Annual Hydrologic Report as follows: <br />z. One groundwater impact described in the Probable Hydrologic impact <br />section is vertical leakage in improperly sealed exploration holes <br />(page 7-119). Does Peabody have any exploration holes witnin the <br />mine permit area which have not been completed as monitoring wells <br />and which are not sealed? If so, please identir'y them and prepare <br />a schedule for abandonment, to prevent this unnecessary impact to <br />the groundwater regime. <br />b. The probable hydrologic impacts section and associated monitoring <br />is supposed to evaluate worst case impacts from mining. September <br />sampling of specific spoils spring sites does not result in z worst <br />case estimate of spoils flow. Please revise the monitoring plan to <br />include a mine-wide spring and seep survey each spring when the <br />mine dries out. Commit to preparation of a map witnin thirty da}~s <br />of completion of the survey which identifies these sites. <br />0~ 'T U' r~2.-.^-'~ <br />f. <br />l~o.~-LP- DO ~S ~-T7Z - ICI) . <br />. s,~ze ~.~ .~ -.-y~,*~. C <br />