My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-11-23_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2015-11-23_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:12:51 PM
Creation date
11/30/2015 9:15:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/23/2015
Doc Name
3rd Preliminary Adequacy Response Adequacy Items 1 to 86
From
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
PR4
Email Name
ZTT
JRS
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.
/
16
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
r <br />Mr. Zach Trujillo <br />November 20, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />ITEM 27. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 28. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 29. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 30. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 31. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 32. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 33. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 34. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 35. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 36. It appears on the maps that large areas that are within the tie-in boundary (presumed to be <br />same as disturbance boundary) do not drain to a pond. This includes the west side of the pit, in Sections <br />2, 3, and 34. Please explain this in light of 4.05.5(1) and other relevant rules. <br />Response: A new Exhibit 7, Item 23, Part H - Perimeter Area has been provided to address the perimeter <br />area disturbances that are shown on Map 41B. <br />ITEM 37. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 38. It appears that a different unit weight was used for south end of the fill. The unit weight used <br />for this analysis was 130 pcf compared to 110 pcf used in the analyses performed for the primary slope of <br />the spoil fill. Please provide the Division with an explanation for the change in unit weight for spoil or <br />provide a slope stability analysis using the correct unit weight. <br />Response: The unit weight of 130 pcf on Figure 5 was an error in the addendum, and it has been <br />corrected to 110 pcf. The entire Exhibit 23, Item 2 has been revised and resubmitted in response to <br />correcting the unit weight to 110 pcf. <br />ITEM 39. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 40. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 41. Response is adequate. <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRAIIATIVE ACTION ENIPLOYER <br />A Touchstone Energy°Cooperative <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.