Laserfiche WebLink
RESPONSE: Page 2.05.4-39 has been revised to address these issues. <br /> <br />3. Soils and Overburden <br />a. The No. 6 Mine revision p^^jects increase production to 4 million <br />tpy. However, no estimate of the amount of waste rock produced as <br />a result of this increase is included. As a result it is difficult <br />to evaluate whether the proposed waste disposal area at the No. 9 <br />Mine has sufficient capacity to handle the increased volume. The <br />operator should submit an estimate of the waste volume to be <br />produced, and provide a mass-balance considering the capacity of <br />the No. 9 Mine disposal area, and any expansion f the existing <br />disposal area which would be required. Estimates of the waste <br />volume produced should be based on expected coal production rates <br />and on the characteristics of the E & F Seams. <br />RESPONSE: Page 2.05.3-40 has been revised to address these issues. <br />b. The plan for using the No. 9 Mine portal as a disposal area would <br />seem to be approvable in concept. However, the operator must <br />provide information on the stability of the portal berm and of the <br />waste material. As mentioned above, the capacity of the site <br />should also be calculated. In addition, it states that four feet <br />should also be calculated. In addition, it states that four feet <br />of non-toxic material will be used to cover the shop/laydown area <br />at the No. 9 Mine upon final reclamation. The operator should <br />discuss how this plan relates to AOC and the continuation of <br />farming in the area, as the shop "bench" is already higher than the <br />surrounding topography. <br />RESPO <br />light <br />. level <br />area. <br />these <br />VSE: The portal berm stability concern is not applicable in <br />of the fact that all waste rock will be below the ground <br />and the berm will not exist following reclamation of the <br />Pages 2.05.4-17 and 2.05.4-18 have been revised to address <br />issues. <br />39-6 <br />