Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpectra Comments ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE AND SURVEYING, PC RE t CEO March 31, 2008 Af'' 4 lldO! V Mr. Michael Hollibaugh, Director'` Division of Community Services City of Carmel, City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 046032 Subject: Spectra Comments Regarding Review of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MM), Mueller Property South Underground Limestone Operation Application, March 2008 Dear Mr. Hollibaugh: Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. (Spectra) has reviewed the above -named application materials in anticipation of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting of Aprill, 2008. As you know, Greg Sovas and I planned to attend that meeting; however, both of us have had differing conflicts that have prevented our presence at the meeting. As part of our review, we have revisited our comments on the Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake in 2005 because of its impacts on the current underground application. Our comments are intended to clarify several issues that will most assuredly be raised by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Some of our comments are intended to make the application more comprehensive and complete for review by the BZA. The following is a summary of our comments: 1. Mine Plan a. The Mine Plan is not definitive enough and needs work. There is a conflict with the surface mining application in that the floor of the surface mining operation is about 490 feet, yet this underground application says that underground mining would begin at 560 feet and progress 900 feet to -202 feet at mean sea level. This discrepancy needs to be rectified. Please give the height of the roof at the start of the underground mine. b. Given that the current floor of the existing mine south of Mueller South is at approximately 490 feet and the final floor of the surface mining of limestone is at 490 feet, then how will the underground mining be accomplished? Are the adits to be designed as vertical or will MM deepen the floor of the existing mine? c. The plan itself is too broad. While the pillars are designed at 45 feet square, the height of the rooms will be as high as 88 feet. There needs to be a better ONE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, SUITE 401 19 BRITISH AMERICAN BOULEVARD 307 SOUTH TOWNSEND STREET POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601 LATHAM, NY 12110 SYRACUSE, NY 13202 (845) 454 -9440 (518) 782 -0882 (315) 471 -2101 FAX (845) 454 -9206 FAX (518) 782 -0973 FAX (315) 471 -2111 WWW.SPECTRAENV.COM Mr. Michael Hollibaugh March 31, 2008 Page 2 explanation of what the final configuration will be. Also, there needs to be a better explanation of the timing of the underground mining, i.e. in five years, twenty years, etc. d. There is no discussion of whether Hazel Dell will be undermined, although the Mine Plan map shows less than complete pillars along the east side of Hazel Dell. e. There is no discussion of the hours of operation, i.e. will the mine be operated 24 hours per day, 365 days per year? f. Once the near final configuration of the underground workings is established in the application, the Department of Community Services (DOCS) should require a certification from a qualified mining engineer that the mine design is structurally sound. 2. Subsidence Monitoring a. A statement was made in the application that there would be no subsidence from the underground mine. We disagree with the statement. While there may be no appreciable subsidence, eventually the area on and around an underground mine will subside. b. Because of its proximity to 106 Street and Hazel Dell, we recommend that a subsidence monitoring program be established by MM and monitored yearly with results reported to the DOCS. Such a program could be established by monuments along the perimeter of the northern half of the existing mine from Gray Road around to Hazel Dell. c. There should also be a provision for a meeting and study with MM if the results indicate that there is any appreciable subsidence. 3. Blasting Information a. The application needs to be supplemented with blasting information. The isoseismic study by Vibra -Tech Engineers could be included with some discussion of the underground signature blast. A discussion of the impacts would be beneficial. b. Other information needed is some indication of the number of blasts per week, size of blasts, and whether MM intends to blast 24 hours per day. 4. Water Issues a. There needs to be some discussion of how removing limestone will impact the aquifer. Presumably, MM should indicate their plans for the pumping of water from the mine to the ponds and whether the ponds have the capacity to handle the increased flows. b. Some discussion of the impact upon Carmel water supplies and reclamation of the lake at Mueller North should be included in the application. We recall that MM had done some previous studies, and perhaps these should be included in the application. Mr. Michael Hollibaugh March 31, 2008 Page 3 c. We understand that MM continues to communicate with John Duffy on their plans, and we appreciate that there may be positive outcomes for both MM and the City. As a final note, we presume that the commitments from MM will parallel those presented on the Surface Mining Application, and we would be pleased to provide you with our comments. As always, we appreciate working with the City and with Martin Marietta in a cooperative and productive manner. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. c/4/1 en C. Kappel, P.G. Director of Mining, Minerals and Environmental Permitting cc: G. Sovas, XRM JCK/GHS /em G:\2001\ 01233 \Correspondence\Hollibaugh Itr Rev MM Materials.doc