Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roger Schmidt <br /> March 15, 2017 <br /> Page 6 <br /> from the pipeline, had it occurred, would have drained down and away from the <br /> pipe and into the Al gravel pit. <br /> Tetra Tech letter,p. 2, second paragraph, last sentence: <br /> "The pipeline was not operational at the time of the inspection due to leaking joints in the <br /> pipeline. " <br /> WWE comment: <br /> The pipeline referenced in the comment is not relevant to the issue being addressed. The <br /> pipeline that the comment refers to is the new temporary inverted siphon that was <br /> completed in 2016; it is an interim repair until a permanent fix can be made to the <br /> permanent pipeline. There is no disagreement that the temporary pipeline is leaking. <br /> However, since the temporary pipeline did not exist at the time when the most recent <br /> breach of the permanent pipeline occurred, in 2014, it is not related to this discussion. <br /> Tetra Tech letter, p. 3, third paragraph, first sentence: <br /> "In summary, we believe AI is in compliance with their permit. " <br /> WWE comments: <br /> Regarding Al being in compliance with their permit, WWE's opinion is summarized as <br /> follows: <br /> • The Al pit was in compliance with the following specific terms of their permit: <br /> o The embankment slopes are not steeper than 3:1 <br /> o The embankment slopes were generally well vegetated. <br /> • The Al pit was not in compliance with other specific terms of their permit: <br /> o Permit Application to DAMS, 83rd Joint Venture (June 4, 1992) (Regular <br /> Operation 112 Reclamation Permit). <br /> ■ In the permit application to DRMS from the 83rd Joint Venture, <br /> dated June 4, 1992, for the Regular Operation 112 Reclamation <br /> Permit, the application states in the Notice to <br /> Commenters/Objectors: "This mining operation will not adversely <br /> affect the stability of any significant, valuable and permanent man- <br />