My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL50392
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL50392
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:35:55 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 5:55:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1983058
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/13/1993
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.
/
15
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
Introduction <br />This document presents the results of the Division's mid-term review of the Twin Pines <br />Mine No. 2. This mid-term review was conducted to fulfill the requirements of <br />Rules 2.08.3, 2.06.2(9), 2.06.3(4), 2.06.513), 2.06.715) and 3.02.2(4). <br />Rule 2.08.3 requires that the Division conduct a review of each permit issued, prior to its <br />mid-term (2 1 /2 yearsl. Based on this review, for good cause shown, the Division may <br />require reasonable revision or modification of the permit provisions to ensure compliance <br />with the Act and Regulations. <br />Rules 2.06.2, 3, 5, and 7 requires that experimental practices, mountain top removal <br />variances, variances from AOC, and variances from contemporaneous reclamation be <br />reviewed by the Division where applicable. The Twin Pines Mine No. 2 permit does not <br />have any operations under these categories. <br />Rules 3.02.3(4) requires that the Division review the amount of the bond and the terms of <br />acceptance of the bond every 2 1/2 years. <br />The mid-term review consisted of a detailed review of the Twin Pines Mine No. 2 <br />application to identify any items that may have been overlooked during the initial review. <br />The Division also reviewed subsequent revisions and stipulation responses to ensure that <br />all permit commitments and conditions were being followed. Hydrologic monitoring data <br />was reviewed in conjunction with the review of the application to assess the adequacy of <br />the monitoring plan and discussion of hydrologic impacts. <br />This document is organized as follows: Section I includes a summary of our decision to <br />require revisions with regard to the mid-term review required under Rule 2.08.3, including <br />a listing by category of what items need to be revised, and a rationale for requiring these <br />revisions. Section II is a summary of the revisions which have been processed during the <br />last five years. Section III presents a summary of the status of the stipulations attached to <br />the Twin Pines No. 2 Mine Permit No. C-83-058 and any revision required with regard to <br />the stipulations. Section IV presents the results of the bond review required under <br />Rule 3.02.2(4)If). The responses to items identified in Section I should be submitted as <br />one package by February 8, 1993, in a format that allows easy insertion into the <br />application. <br />I. Decision to Require Revisions to the Permit <br />The Division has conducted amid-term review under Rules 2.08.3, 2.06.2(9), 2.06.3(4), <br />2.06.5(3), 2.06.7(5) and 3.02.2(4). The review included the Twin Pines Mine No. 2 <br />permit application, subsequent revisions, stipulation responses, hydrologic monitoring data, <br />past inspection reports, and on site inspections. The Division finds that certain revisions <br />and modifications are needed to ensure future compliance with the Colorado Surface Coal <br />Mining Reclamation Act and the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation <br />Board for Coal Mining. The revision required may be combined into a single technical <br />revision titled "Responses to the Mid-Term Review". The responses should be submitted <br />Twin Pines Mid-Term Review 1 January 13, 1993 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.