1995-08-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981041

• Permit No: C1981041
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 8/18/1995
• Doc Name: Midterm Review Findings Document
• Permit Index Doc Type: Findings
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

z
2. The statement of interests in lands, options, or pending bids
on interest held or made, should apply to areas contiguous to the
entire permit area, rather than the "southern permit area" as
currently stated. The statement should be appropriately amended.
Rule 2. 03 . 5
\ 1 . Documentation of final resolution of a certain State of
Kentucky violation, and an AML audit violation specified in
Stipulations 11 and 13 , issued to companies with ownership and
control interests in Powderhorn Coal Company should be submitted to
the Division.
Rule 2. 04 . 7
1 . The discussion of groundwater quality on Page 56 should
reference any baseline studies conducted by the operator within the
permit area, in addition to the other studies cited.
2. There are apparently contradictory statements on Page 60 , with
regard to groundwater recharge within sandstones and coal seams
situated above and below the river level . In one sentence it is
stated that beds lower than the river are not continuously
recharged. The following sentence states, "In contrast, recharge
is discontinuous and occurs at an even lower rate to beds above the
level of the Colorado River." Should the statement have indicated
that beds lower than the river are continuously recharged? The
narrative in this section should be clarified.
Rule 2 .05. 6
1 . The section on Protection of the Hydrologic Balance which
begins on page 202f, should be updated to reflect resumption of
mining in the Roadside North Portal. In 1994 , the mine discharged
more than 4 tons of salt per day to the Colorado River. The
predicted percent increase in surface water conductance, TDS, iron,
and pH should be re-assessed, incorporating projected impacts from
the North Portal mine area.
On page 203 , the operator states, "water pumped from the mine
workings will be clarified and treated prior to discharge into the
Colorado River and will have an insignificant impact on the quality
of river water. " Is the "clarification and treatment" limited
solely to settling within mine sumps prior to discharge? Any
current or proposed minewater clarification and treatment systems
or methodologies should be described within the application.
2. Is the statement on page 204 indicating that there are no
beneficial users of groundwater in the permit or adjacent area
still valid? If not, the application should be appropriately
updated.
3 . On Page 217c, a 1992 study required by the Health Department to