REV97047 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DMG Concern Items 111.6.9. and 12 were discussed and found that this information is not available. CEC provided a letter from the Division dated September 12, 1986 confirming information regarding the Lux well. CEC Rgsponse No response required. DMG Concern The Division reviewed construction certifications for impoundments at the Eagle No. 5 and 9 Mine. These certifications were provided to the Division on September 2, 1993. The Division's comments follow: 1) The submitted drawings don't appear to be numbered for placement into the permit. CEC should number the exhibits. 2) Rule 2.05.3(4)(a)(i)(B) requires the operator to submit cross sections of impoundments. The drawing depicting the sewage lagoons includes cross sections. The others, 5-P5, 5-P6, and 5-P7; 9-P2; and 9-P3 do not. Please provide cross sections of the ponds and embankments as required. 3) Please provide details for the emergency spillways for ponds 9-P2 and 9-P3, as required by Rule 4.05.6(7). Specifically, the Division needs dimensions of the depth, width, length, and side slopes, and specifics of any channel lining in place. CEC Response Per our meeting of March 1, CEC will provide the numbered versions of the previously submitted drawings. As discussed, the cross-sections and spillways information requested will be submitted under a separate letter to allow CEC time to review our files and determine if any additional submittals are required. If so, then CEC may need to conduct supplemental survey work on some of the sites. Per our discussion, CEC is concerned that adverse ground conditions might negatively impact survey accuracy if we were to attempt such surveys too early. As such, CEC will provide the necessary information at a later time, in order to avoid any further delays to the renewal process. Per our previous discussions, this timeframe will follow the 90 day outline previously noted.