My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC05661
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC05661
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:01:11 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:22:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1983059
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
9/27/1984
Doc Name
INSPECTION REPORT
From
MLRD
To
RICK CHILTON
Inspection Date
9/16/1984
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.
/
9
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
General Comments Continued <br />A majority_of the apples and pears in Mr. Kuretich's orchard hd a partial <br />coating of coal dust. The dust was most apparent around the stems, where <br />it is not washed off by rain. Do to the natural waxy coating on the <br />fruit, the dust is not easily rubbed or washed off. Mr. Kuretich sells <br />his fruit from a roadside stand and does not have washing facilities. As <br />a result, the visible effect of coal dust is a significant concern to <br />him. Terror Creek's air quality permit requires watering as needed for <br />dust suppression. Based on the dry condition of the yard area at the <br />beginning of the inspection, and the visible effects of coal dust on Mr. <br />Kuretich's fruit, more frequent watering of the yard area would appear to <br />be necessary during summer and fall. <br />Subsequent to the inspection, Scott Miller of the Air Pollution Control <br />Division was contacted regarding the problem. Mr. Miller indicated that <br />use of chemical dust suppressants would probbly not be effective in a <br />coal yard, due to the continued accumulation of coal from traffic and <br />spillage. Mr. Miller indicated that the Air Pollution Control Division <br />would be monitoring the situation. <br />2. Drainage control structures were well maintained and functional. <br />3. Interim revegetation has established well in most areas. <br />4. The operator was informed that OSM had determined that, as a result of <br />the MLR written approval, an enforcement action would not be taken by OSM <br />for failure to strip topsoil in a .7 acre equipment storage area. As <br />requested by the operator, a copy of that determination is attached. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.