Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The Division has no further concems. In the submittal dated August 30, 1999, BRL stated <br />that the topsoil salvage estimate for the downhill conveyor project included the proposed <br />relocation azea for pond B. <br />34. BRL notes on revised pnge 2.O.i-3.i that only about one-haljof the topsoil originnlly <br />inventoried to be snlvaged was actually salvnged. Three reasons nre listed. Does BRL <br />expect to run into any of these dijfrculties, or any other di~crrlties such as oil <br />contamination, during this construction project? Were these difficulties considered in the <br />cubic yard estimates for the conveyor project topsoil salvaging and tivill BRL still be able <br />to meet the minimum topsoil replacement requirements jorrnd on page 2.O.i-48 of the <br />permi! application? <br />In its August 30, 1999 response, BRL stated that they expect to salvage all of the <br />available topsoil, estimated to be 20,100 cubic yards of topsoil, from the downhill <br />conveyor project. BRL further stated that they expect to meet the topsoil replacement <br />depths listed on permit application page 2.05-48. The response to item number 5 above, <br />concerning contaminated topsoil, also applies to this question as well. <br />3.i. On page 2.05-7ri of the revised text, BRL states that seven drill holes will be monitored. The <br />permit document indicates that eleven drill holes are monitored. The 1998 AHR indicates <br />that nine drill holes were monitored daring 1998. This needs to be clarifred and some <br />rationale provided if BRL proposes to reduce the approved groundwater monitoring <br />program. <br />The Division has no further concems. BRL revised page 2.05-76, in their August 30, <br />1999 submittal to clazify that thirteen wells will be monitored. The revised page also <br />states which wells they are. The confusion azose initially because several wells had been <br />eliminated due to construction activities and two more had been added later. <br />36. BRL submitted revised pages for the NPDES permit, to be placed into the permit <br />application. The submittal was not a response to any Division question. <br />37. The Division has spoken to BRL personnel previously about the potential problem with <br />short circuiting of the proposed relocated pond B by having the primary discharge <br />structure too close to the pond inlet ditch on the west side. Short-circuiting could result in <br />sediment laden water entering [he pond and going directly [o the discharge structure, <br />bypassing the rest ojthe pond. The Division is requesting That BRL modify the proposed <br />pond configuration so that the primary discharge structure is as far away from any of the <br />pond inlets as is possible. <br />This question has not appeazed in an adequacy letter before. <br />12 <br />