My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11594
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11594
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:55 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:21:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1992080
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
11/19/1992
Doc Name
CARBON JUNCTION NEW PERMIT APPLICATION C-92-080 ADEQACY REVIEW
From
HARRY RANNEY
To
DARRY FERGUSON
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.
/
13
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 />-7- <br /> <br />2.05.3(4) Page 5-13(7) "The Sediment Control Plan ... works only if <br />(cont.) pit storage is available." Currently, pit storage is not <br />available. Does this imply the installed sediment control <br />system is inadequate to handle current conditions? <br />Page 5-14(3) drainage from topsoil piles 2, 3, and 5 do <br />not pass through a sediment pond. This implies these <br />areas are small area exemptions, yet there is no <br />supporting calculations/documentation to indicate runoff <br />does not exceed effluent limitations. <br />Either the demonstrations that effluent limitations will <br />be met must be made or the piles must be included into the <br />sediment control plan. <br />2.05.3(6) Oakridge Energy, Inc. plans to conduct a pre-mining survey <br />to establish horizontal and vertical control for the pit <br />area. When will this be accomplished in terms of the <br />operations plan? <br />Page 5-17(2) the statement that "the need for a designed <br />underdrain is not applicable" is false. In fact a <br />certified design with pictures showing the construction of <br />the underdrain is required per Rules 4.10.3 and 4.10.4. <br />2.05.3(6)(b) Page 5-20(1) four foot lifts in reality do not compact. <br />The Division strongly recommends lifts of no more than <br />2 feet and preferably 1 foot. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.