My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-04-30_REVISION - C1996083
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2015-04-30_REVISION - C1996083
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:59:46 PM
Creation date
5/4/2015 7:48:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/30/2015
Doc Name
Adequacy Response #1
From
J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR98
Email Name
JDM
DIH
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.
/
6
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
Jason Musick -4- April 27, 2015 <br />BRL: Borrow are #3 will no longer be utilized as explained above. <br />Therefore, no response is necessary. <br />9. DRMS: Please update the Table of Contents to show pagination <br />changes resulting from TR -98. <br />BRL: Please see revised Table of Contents, for Volume IX, and page xiii <br />for inclusion in Volume I. <br />10. DRMS: The Certificate immediately following the TOC has not been <br />updated since September 2013. Please update to reflect the current <br />status. <br />BRL: Please see revised Volume IX certification. <br />11. DRMS: Page 4a of the approved PAP illustrates the changes to Gob <br />Piles #2 and #4 that have been approved under various revisions. <br />Please update this diagram to reflect changes made subsequent <br />to TR -76. <br />BRL: Please see revised Page 4a. <br />12. DRMS: Page 5 has been revised to include the East and North <br />expansion proposed under TR -98. The text indicates that no extension of <br />the underdrain is necessary for East and North expansion. According to <br />Section A -A' (Figure 1), the pile is being extending further up valley. <br />Please explain why no extension is necessary. <br />BRL: Figure 2 as referenced on page 5 states that the underdrain would be <br />extended if seeps were /are encountered. No seeps have been encountered. <br />The original underdrain as installed was done in an effort to be conservative. <br />No seeps were encountered, nor have there been since the original <br />underdrain was installed. Nonetheless, it makes sense to add the underdrain <br />hatch and directions to Maps 21 -3 and Figure 2. Please see revised Map 21- <br />3 and Figure 2. <br />13. DRMS: On Page 6, in the first paragraph, the disturbed area for Gob <br />Pile #2 -4 has been revised from 58.0 (approved) to 50.9 (proposed). <br />Please provide an explanation for this decrease. <br />BRL: Please see revised page 6. A revision to the approved disturbed area <br />has been corrected and reverted back to the approved acreage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.