My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC28942
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC28942
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:32:19 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 10:18:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980110
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
NOTICE OF INSPECTION AND INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
6/12/1985
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.
/
2
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
<br />INSPECTION REPORT - PAGE 2 <br />FILE N0. 80-110 <br />DATE: June 12, 1985 <br />OBSERVATIONS OF IMPORTANCE: <br />Operator showed Division around site specifying location of topsoil piles. <br />The one topsoil originally designated as such by the Division and operator <br />representative is located in the southwest corner. Adjacent to this pile to <br />the East is two more topsoil piles. Also, there is a small pile located to <br />the north of the original topsoil pile which seems to be being covered over by <br />processed gravel material. Another located topsoil pile is just north of the <br />scale house adjacent to the west fence next to an overburden stockpile. Just <br />to the north and east of this pile is another topsoil pile. The last topsoil <br />pile is located on the extreme northeast corner of the site. <br />The difference between the number of topsoil piles identified during this <br />inspection versus that last inspection is because the operator had the old <br />plant manager on the site to discuss past salvaging practices and locations. <br />The operator representative showing the Division around during the previous <br />inspection was unclear about these piles. <br />The operator has had soil samples taken from most of these topsoil piles and <br />sent to C.S.U. for analysis. The results (to be submitted to the Division <br />sometime next week) indicate similar chemical and physical characteristics <br />for all the piles. The only variance was the soil sample taken from the plant <br />site adjacent to the salt/gravel stockpile which had an understandably <br />exceedingly high SAR. <br />After reviewing the results of the soil analysis from C.S.U. and documentation <br />from the operator that the soil stockpiled is of sufficient quantity to <br />properly resoil all of the site, the Division will recommend that the Board <br />not pursue this issue any further if our concerns have been totally <br />satisfied. The operator is to submit this material during the week of June <br />17, 1985. <br />The Division requests that the C.S.U. Soil analysis, a map depictin sampling <br />locations, and documentation supporting soiling requirements and salvaged soil <br />amounts be submitted to the Division as soon as possible. <br />The Division appreciates the time spent by the operator and the consultants in <br />showing the Division around. <br />ygt <br />cc: Mr. Robert Siegrist <br />Doc. No. 1349 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.