My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-02-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2016-02-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:19:26 PM
Creation date
2/26/2016 2:18:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/23/2016
Doc Name
Proposed Decision and Findings & Cost Estimate (SL3)
From
DRMS
To
Energy Fuels Coal, Inc.
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
Email Name
RDZ
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.
/
27
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
The sediment in the south inlet culvert to Pond 5 does not impact the functioning of the culvert. <br />The bare areas on the berm are not a problem. The requirements for revegetation of the reclaimed area <br />do not preclude small bare areas. <br />Corley Comment #10 <br />In a January 25, 2015 email, in the context of sediment demonstrations, Dr. Corley asked that the <br />locations where LS values were measured be shown on a map. He also asked for more detail on the <br />sources of information for the LS factors. <br />Response to Comment #10 <br />The locations where LS values are measured need not be shown on a map. EFCI hasprovided sufficient <br />detail on the sources of information for the LS factor and other inputs. <br />Corley Comment #11 <br />In a January 26, 2016 email, Dr. Corley stated that his understanding of the purpose of the sediment <br />model is to demonstrate that a reclaimed area will not produce more sediment runoff than that area <br />produced pre -mining. <br />Response to Comment #11 <br />Rule 3.03.1(3)(b) states that the comparison can be made to pre -mining conditions (if baseline data is <br />available) or to adjacent nonmined areas, which is what EFCI demonstrated. <br />Corley Comment #12 <br />In the January 26, 2016 email, Dr. Corley suggested that the sediment models are being manipulated to <br />produce a certain favorable value instead of an unbiased scientific result. <br />Response to Comment #12 <br />The Division finds the sediment demonstration to be reasonable and accurate. <br />Corley Comment #13 <br />In the January 26, 2016 email, Dr. Corley stated that in the last five years Pond 5 has been cleaned out <br />twice, and two of those last five years were far below average rainfall. He also stated that since the <br />reclaimed grass revegetation is good there must be other sources for this excess sediment. <br />Response to Comment #13 <br />Rule 3.03.1(3)(b) does not state that no sediment may come from reclaimed lands. It states that sediment <br />levels may not be in excess of premining levels. EFCI adequately demonstrated this with their sediment <br />demonstration. <br />Corley Comment #14 <br />In the January 26, 2016 email, Dr. Corley stated that the Magpie Diversion was cut through the toe of <br />the GEC West Pit spoil pile, resulting in a much shorter and direct path for GEC sediment to reach <br />Magpie Creek. <br />Response to Comment #14 <br />The Magpie Diversion Ditch was permitted and constructed when the mine was opened. It has <br />remained stable. <br />Southfield Mine SL -03 Page 6 of 21 February 23, 2016 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.