My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990-08-02_REVISION - C1981035
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981035
>
1990-08-02_REVISION - C1981035
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2021 7:08:24 AM
Creation date
4/16/2012 1:01:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
8/2/1990
Doc Name
Review Letter
From
Jim Pendleton
To
Dan Mathews
Type & Sequence
PR2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
STATit OF COLORADO <br /> MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION of cot/o <br /> Department of Natural Resources <br /> 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 ** »Denver,CO 80203 <br /> 303 866-3567 *1876 <br /> FAX: 303 832-8106 <br /> Roy Romer, <br /> Governor <br /> Fred R Banta, <br /> Division Director <br /> DATE: August 2, 1990 <br /> TO: Dan Mathews <br /> FROM: Jim Pendleton hod <br /> RE: National g Coal pany's Supplemental Response - P.R. #02 <br /> I have reviewed the materials submitted by National King Coal in response to <br /> your adequacy letter of June 26, 1990. The material presented is acceptable <br /> to me. The applicant states that NKCC intends to retain the elongated pillars <br /> indicated on its underground mine plan immediately beneath the Pine Gulch <br /> drainage system. Further, it projects that retention of these pillars will <br /> prevent potential subsidence-related damage to the hydrologic balance outside <br /> the permit area. I concur with these statements. This same response is <br /> presented both within their "Surface Water Hydrology" and "Subsidence" <br /> sections of their supplemental response. These responses resolve my earlier <br /> concerns expressed in regard to both of these topics. <br /> One topic expressed in my June 12, 1990 memorandum to you, however, has not <br /> been adequately responded to by the applicant. I expressed a concern that the <br /> proposes final disposition of NKCC's temporarily stored coal refuse was <br /> unacceptable. The applicant proposed to excavate and redeposit the coal <br /> refuse against the high wall of their existing surface facilities bench. They <br /> suggested that this will provide additional material with which to achieve <br /> AOC. As I stated earlier, I believe the applicant must either delete this <br /> portion of the application, or amend it to include an analytical determination <br /> of the static slope safety factor of the proposed "coal refuse disposal <br /> pile". Redeposition of the coal refuse material would subject NKCC to <br /> compliance with the requirements of Rule 4.10 in the backfilled area. <br /> If the proposal to redeposit the coal refuse within the backfilled spoil area <br /> has been aeleted, I recommend approval of the geotechnical components of the <br /> National King Coal Permit Revision #02. <br /> cc: Jim Stevens <br /> Doc. No: 919OF <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.