Laserfiche WebLink
Mid-Term Review <br />Grassy Gap Coal i4ine No. 1 <br />I. Introduction <br />This document presents the results of the Division's mid-term review of the <br />Grassy Gap mine. The review was conducted to fulfill the requirements of <br />Rules 2.06.2, .3, .5, .7, 2:08.3 and 3.02.2(4). Rule 2.08.3 requires that <br />the Division conduct a review of each permit issued, prior to its mid-term <br />(2 1/2 years): Based on this review, for good cause shown, the Division may <br />require reasonable revisions or modification of the permit provisions to <br />insure compliance with the Act and Regulations. Rules 2.02.2, .3, .5, and .7 <br />require that experimental practices, mountain top removal; variances from AOC, <br />and variances from contemporaneous reclamation be reviewed by the Division <br />(where applicable) within 3 years of permit issuance. The Grassy Gap mine <br />does not have any operations in these categories. Rule 3.02.2(4) requires <br />that the Division review the amount of bond and the terms of acceptance every <br />2 1/2 years. <br />The mid-term review consisted of a detailed review of the Grassy Gap permit. <br />The Division also reviewed subsequent revisions, ,)oint agreements, and <br />stipulation responses to insure that all permit commitments and conditions <br />- were being followed. Hydrologic monitoring data was reviewed to assess the <br />discussion of hydrologic impacts. <br />This document is organized as follows: Section II outlines general <br />requirements, and formatting procedures which should be followed for updating <br />the permit application; Section III discusses specific questions or <br />requirements on a section by section bases, following the organization of the <br />permit application; Section IV discusses maps; Section V discuses bond terms <br />and amount; and Sections VI and VII summarize revisions, submittals, and <br />stipulation commitments which must be incorporated into the permit. <br />II: General <br />In general the permit is complete, clearly written and concise. Therefore, no <br />mayor changes or rewrites will be necessary for this mid-term. However, the <br />Dl vision will require that all revisions, adequacy responses, stipulation <br />commitments and point settlement agreement commitments be inserted into the <br />permit so that the document is completely up to date. In some cases, this has <br />been done, as reflected in the revised pages dated 2/85: Similarly, the <br />remaining information should be incorporated as revised pages, with the <br />revision date in the lower left-hand corner. Tables of Contents should be <br />revised to reflect these changes as necessary. <br />Please note that for convenience, the Division has separated its copy of the <br />permit into 2 volumes. Yolume 1 contains Chapters I and II, and Volume 2 <br />contains Chapters III through VI. It is not required that the Rockcastle <br />Company similarly separate their permit. <br />