Laserfiche WebLink
12. Applicant's current permit allows it to use in <br /> ert fill, and the <br /> Application retains that option. TheApplicant art sere d testimony that it does not <br /> accept any hazardous materials as inert fill and that it utilizes stringent <br /> es a <br /> monitoring play. oral Objectors raised concerns that Applicant was accepting <br /> ' <br /> potentiallyhazardous materials a , including drilling mud and water as well as <br /> concrete with Debar in it. <br /> 13. Applicant has submitted therequired affidavit to theDivision <br /> regarding its inert fill. Applicant also presented <br /> testimony regarding its inert ill <br /> program, including that it requires anyone brining inert er fill to the site to certify <br /> that the fill comes ftsomn uncontaminated site. Applicant had the site tested <br /> contaminants related to ir�o�# dill when i for <br /> acquired the site. the results of those <br /> tests were below applicable limits for volatile •- <br /> organic compounds, heavy metals and <br /> were indicative f common metals in dirt in the <br /> aarea, Applicant also testified that i <br /> follows and complies with Adams Count <br /> es requirements regarding the use of r <br /> fill. <br /> 1 . Regarding the hydrological balance, Applicant testified es �fied that it would <br /> not mine into the water table. Four nears wells <br /> � are over 300 feet deep and under <br /> approximately 150 feet of impermeable le shale. Applicant t has permits for <br /> stor water and will not use any toxic or acidic r • <br /> products �xx its operation. <br /> Applicant's site deer not include an w , <br /> � tlanal , and its rr��n�n operations wall n <br /> impact wetlands. of <br /> 15. Objectors raised concerns regarding impacts to wldle, including <br /> deer herd that was present in the area. Se testified Several objectors tet� ed that the deer hid <br /> started avoiding the area due to activity at the site <br /> and that there had been hunting <br /> in the pit. n g <br /> 16. Applicant r ente to timo that wildlife <br /> had adapted to the activity <br /> �. the site and that the � des take wildlife <br /> p dlie into account. A survey of the site <br /> found n threatened or � <br /> endangered species. <br /> 17. The Division presented testier .regarding ng the Application and its <br /> review of it and authority to inspect and enforce permit t con ' 'ions and regulations ons <br /> after approval. The Applicant had satisfied <br /> all of the Dlvisio .s adequacy review <br /> requests, and the <br /> Application satisfied the re lulreme is of the Act <br /> and the Rules. <br /> 18. The Division recommended approving the permit it Application�oApplicationover <br /> objections. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAB' <br /> 19. The Board has jurisdiction over Applicant and t ,his matter pursuant to <br /> the Act. <br /> Albert Frei &Boys, Inc. <br /> A S-Bennet it M-too 1-o <br />