My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12255
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12255
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:36 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:28:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Name
LORENCITO CANYON MINE PERMIT REVISION EXHIBIT 11
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.
/
15
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
• Jerry Koblitz <br />Page 7 <br />July 22, 1997 <br />91. The Division initially asked for five sets of information pertaining to each of the nine <br />proposed valley/head-of-hollow fills (March 3, 1997). The applicant's initial response <br />was that a response to this question would be submitted at a later date. As the Division's <br />initial question was not completely answered, the Division responded by stating the <br />response was at that time inadequate (5/27/97). <br />The applicant, in its latest (7/1/97) response, stated that the information requested by the <br />Division's original question would be submitted at a later date, and requested that the <br />Division stipulate the collection and submittal of the information. A proposed <br />methodology for conducting a geotechnical fill evaluation was additionally provided <br />(dated April 30, 1997; submitted with the July 1, 1997 response). <br />The Division will stipulate as a condition of approval of the permit that until the <br />information for each of the nine fills requested by this original question, and required by <br />Rules 2.05.3(6)(6), 2.05.3(6)(c)(I) - (v), 2.05.3(6)(d) and 4.09 is submitted, reviewed and <br />approved by the Division, the Division will withhold its approval for both the nine spoil <br />disposal areas and the areas of fill that aze proposed to be constructed immediately uphill <br />• of each of these nine disposal areas. <br />With regazd to the April 30, 1997 Memorandum from CTL/Thompson pertaining to the <br />proposed geotechnical investigation-methodology, the Division has the following <br />comments: <br />(f) the memorandum proposes investigations for Fills 1 through 4 only. As Rule <br />2.05.3(6)(6) requires plans of overburden disposal sites and structures to include a <br />geotechnical investigation for each site and structure, the applicant must ensure <br />that a geotechnical investigation be conducted for each of the nine proposed <br />disposal sites and spoil disposal structures. <br />(g) Once the nine geotechnical investigations are conducted, the applicant must then <br />supply descriptions, designs and cross-sections for each of the nine proposed <br />disposal sites and spoil disposal structures (not generic plans or designs). These <br />plans must be prepared by (not "or under the direction oF') a qualified registered <br />professional engineer, and must describe the geotechnical investigation, design, <br />construction, operation, maintenance and removal, if appropriate, of each of the <br />nine sites and structures. The results of the nine geotechnical investigations shall <br />include, but not be limited to, that information required by Rule 2.05.3(6)(c). The <br />designs must further comply with the requirements of Rule 4.09. <br />• 98(c). This issue remains inadequate. The text still identifies Map 2.05.2-1 on page Z.OS-37a. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.