Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />energy fuels coal, inc. <br />•oufhikW mlrM • pwt oMlea box Np • Ilomic~, colorWO flltpfl •(71(1) 7fi1d1Y5 <br />April 3, 1996 <br />Barbara L. Pavlik <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />• iiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiii <br />999 <br />Rc~~1=1~iFC <br />ASR u 5 19~E <br />~,:;rv~sw~~ c; rvunela!` ~ lae0io9Y <br />RE: Adequacy Responses to Letter dated 3/18/96 <br />Technical Revision No. 24: Reduction in Subsidence Monitoring <br />Southfield Mine. Your File No. C-81-014 <br />Dear Barbara: <br />With this letter and its attachments, Energy Fuels Coal, Inc. (EFCT) provides responses to <br />your adequacy review of TR-24. The single adequacy review question asks for clarification <br />of the terms "maximum expected subsidence" and "worst~ase expected subsidence" as <br />discussed on Page 2.05.6-56 of the permit application. <br />A review of the RMG report in Exhibit 23, Subsidence Surley, Subsidence Monitoring and <br />Subsidence Control Plan, indicates that your comments about the two terms are correct. <br />Specific discussion of both terms is found on pages 13-16 of the RMG report. As stated in the <br />RMG report, the subsidence predictions shown on Table 1 (maximum expected subsidence) <br />apply to Southfield's mining operations since room-and-pillar extraction is the mining plan. In <br />addition, there is no mention in the RMG report or operations plan about restrictions of <br />retreat mining under any of the documented structures. <br />EFCI has revised page 2.OS.trr56 to clarify the subsidence terms as presented in the RMG <br />report. Enclosed with this transmittal letter are 3 copies of the following: <br />Summary of Revisions/ Additions <br />Revised Permit Text <br /> <br />