ENFORCE21386 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.- ~> ~ Response to Renewal Adequacy Review Page 4 5. As indicated in the August 26, 1992 letter, this stipulation has been resolved. 6. As indicated in the August 26, 1992 letter, no response is necessary at this time. 7. The information contained on Page 5 of Exhibit 60 of Volume 12 has been included as a commitment for fumre surveys on Page 2.05-147 of the permit document. MCC requests that this stipulation be terminated. 8. The commitment to submit semi-annual subsidence reports has been added to Page 2.05-147 of the new permit document (see attached revised page). MCC requests that this stipulation be terminated. 9. As indicated by Matt Hayes in MCC's 1989 mid-term review decision letter, Stipulation 19 was altered by Permit Revision No. 3 to the current configuration and is presently No. 18, designated as future. 10. As indicated in the August 26, 1992 letter, no response is necessary at this time. 11. Stipulation 7 was designated as 'fumre' status rather than active as stated in this question. MCC will incorporate in the permit recommendations made by Jim Pendleton so that this stipulation can be terminated at a later date (please provide MCC a copy of those recommendations). Until then. MCC would like this stipulation to remain in furore status. l2(1). A. The lower refuse pile is still monitored quarterly per the schedule specified in the permit for the "MW" or 'GP" groundwater monitoring wells. In the hydrology monitoring reduction technical revision application approved by the Division in July, 1987, reporting requirements were also reduced to once annually. Submittal of the AHR is a commitment in the permit. B. The monitoring requirements for the lower Refuse Pile monitoring wells were made the same as other ground water wells in the TR application mentioned above. The chemical constituents were deleted at that time. MCC has already committed to provide an assessment of the impacts of the Lower Refuse Pile on page 2.OS~i9 of the permit. As stipulation No. 8 is no longer valid, MCC requests that it be terminated. C. No response necessary. 12(2). As indicated in the August 26, 1992 letter, no response is necessary at this time. 13. As indicated in the August 26, 1992 letter, no response is necessary at this time. 14. As indicated in the August 26, 1992 letter, this stipulation has been resolved. 15. As indicated in the August 26, 1992 letter, no response is necessary at this time.