Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />PAGE 3 <br />FEBRUARY 10, 1993 <br />BARBAFIA PAVLIK <br />3esults be accepted as fulfilling the in-situ test requirement of the NOV. Let me know if DMG <br />concurs with this recommendation. We also request that the portion of the NOV regarding the <br />compaction not being 90 percent be vacated. <br />WFU has abated the first requirement of the NOV by submitting maps with certified text as to the <br />construction being as per the design. Note that in the past these maps were submitted with "As <br />Built" statement. The Assessment Officer agreed to vacate this part of the NOV if the drawings were <br />submitted with "As Built" statement. <br />The second part of the NOV is related to the quarterly inspection of the surface lagoon <br />"impoundment". During the assessment conference, DMG agreed that the lagoon should not be <br />classified as an impoundment because the lagoon water can flow to the White River via an existing <br />culvert. Hence, this part of the NOV should be vacated. <br />I hope this letter satisfactorily responds to DMG's inquiries. If you have any more questions, please <br />call. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~~~--^ <br />Murari P. Shrestha, P.E. <br />Assistant Manager of Engineering <br />MS:Igp <br />cc: Raja Upadhyay <br />Jeff Dubert <br />Tim Chervick <br />