Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DMG Concern <br />As Mr. Shoemaker and I discussed in October 1993, any revised pages or maps <br />submitted for inclusion into the permit need to be submitted as a revision. Revised <br />pages received as a part of this permit renewal should be presented as a <br />Technical Revision. Items already received by the Division during the renewal <br />process do not need to be resubmitted, but should be referenced with a formal <br />revision request. To summarize the Division needs to receive from Cyprus Empire <br />Corp. responses to the following thirteen items: <br />1) II.A. Corrections to Well 83-03 water levels. <br />2) II.B. Screened interval for the Okie Plaza Well. <br />3) III.B.2. Graphs illustrating water elevations in the Trout Creek Sandstone. <br />4) III.B.3.Figure 22, updated to show water level trends through the present. <br />5) 111.6.4. Update to mine water discharge TDS concentrations. <br />6) 111.6.6. Revised pages 2.05.6-13 and 2.05.6-14. <br />7) III.B.7. A table of YearlX means, maximums and minimums is one example <br />of an acceptable way of summarizing the data for trend evaluation . <br />Another acceptable method would be to provide a graphical representation. <br />8) III.B.10. CEC should present updated data on conductivity, iron and pH for <br />all well in which these parameters are analyzed. The data should be <br />presented in a manner that enables the Division to evaluate trends (e.g. <br />graphs or a table showing annual means, maximums and minimums for <br />each parameter). <br />9) III.B.11. Clarification of page 2.04.7-2. <br />10) III.C.1. Revised map 31 to show well 259. <br />11) Number impoundment certifications for insertion into permit. <br />12) Cross sections for ponds and embankments for ponds 5-P5, 5-P6, 5-P7, 9- <br />P2, and 9-P3. <br />13) Detailed dimensions for ponds 9-P2, and 9-P3 to comply with Rule <br />4.05.6(7). <br />