My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-01-14_REVISION - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2011-01-14_REVISION - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:29:02 PM
Creation date
1/24/2011 1:53:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
1/14/2011
Doc Name
Responses to DRMS Adequacy Review (Emailed)
From
Mountain Coal Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR124
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.
/
13
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
Section 2.05.6(6)(f)(iii)(C)(1-V) on page 2.05-170 has been revised to include monitoring of the <br />additional portions of the ditch should it be undermined by extended longwall panel E6. <br />10. "Table 1 of Appendix B of the Mountain Coal Company's Spring 2010 Subsidence and <br />Geologic Field Observations report shows the observed angle of draw at several locations <br />around the perimeter of panel E-1. Map 51 submitted in TR-124 shows the projected surface <br />trace of a 25-degree angle of draw around the perimeter of E-seam workings. Please explain <br />why Map 51 shows the projected 25-degree angle of draw as being approximately the same <br />horizontal distance from the edge of the longwall panel as the 14.4-degree angle of draw <br />observed at Station 101 of the report." <br />The approximate 250 angle-of-draw line shown on longwall panel E1 was projected on Map 51 by <br />calculating the 250 angle at several points of various overburden depths around the panel and <br />then connecting the dots. The exact location of Station 101 was likely not a point where the <br />calculated 250 angle point was plotted. With the map being at a scale of 1"= 2,000', the line width <br />itself comprises 50' and is only intended to approximate the location. A footnote has been added <br />to the Map indicating that the actual subsidence angle-of-draw has been conservatively <br />calculated as 150. <br />11. "Please add at an appropriate place in the permit application a commitment to submit along <br />with each semi-annual subsidence report for the West Elk Mine an application for a Minor <br />Revision that updates Map 51 with all actual workings in the Projected Potential Mining <br />Area. The need for semi-annual updating of Map 51 was previously noted in an email memo <br />from Dan Hernandez to Kathy Welt, dated August 13, 2010." <br />Since the August 13"' e-mail, an addition to Rule 2.04.13 has been proposed in the Division's <br />rule-making process to require that an updated map of the underground mine plan, including <br />current underground workings be provided to the Division each year as part of the Annual <br />Reclamation Report. To avoid duplication of permit commitments and yet provide the information <br />required by the Division to ensure that the actual mining is within the approved Projected <br />Potential Mining Area, MCC will provide an update of the actual mined workings on Map 51 with <br />the Annual Reclamation Report each year. Should MCC propose further changes to the <br />Projected Potential Mining Area or to the projected E-seam mining configuration, a revision <br />application will be submitted. <br />Please contact me at (970) 929-2238 or by e-mail should you have questions regarding this submittal. <br />Sincerely, e <br />GGr? e/ <br />Kathleen G. Welt, <br />Environmental Engineer III <br />cc: Doug Nolte - MCC <br />Dan Hernandez - CDRMS
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.