My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV97552
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV97552
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:21:53 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:10:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/16/1983
Doc Name
COTTERS COMMENT RESPONSES SET FORTH BELOW ARE ADDRESSED TO THE MLRB COMMENTS TRANSMITTED TO COTTER B
Type & Sequence
HR1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• i ~ • <br />7 <br />Cotter Response <br />• a. Referring to Section 6.0 in Appendix E-4, the waste dump does not <br />represent a source of contamination for Ralston Creek. The results <br />of Cotter's study of this MLRB concern were presented to MLRB repre- <br />sentatives during a June 23, 1983, meeting. Accordingly, the pre- <br />vention of infiltration using a clay cover is not necessary. <br />b. The placement of a permanent topsoil cover on the side slopes of the <br />waste dumps is not considered feasible. Operating the equipment <br />necessary to dump and spread the topsoil is not a major concern; <br />however, in order to have a finished, compacted topsoil depth of six <br />inches, a significantly larger volume of soil (i.e., larger than that <br />required for six inches) must be delivered to the site to overcome <br />soil losses through the large pore spaces and the side slopes ~~f the <br />waste material. In addition, relatively high soil losses due to run- <br />off on the side slopes is another concern with regard to the l~>ng <br />term presence and benefits of topsoiled side slopes. Referring to <br />Section 6.0 in Appendix E-4, the waste dumps do not represent ~i <br />source of contamination for Ralston Creek. Also, it should be noted <br />that only about 9 acres of exposed rock material will remain following <br />reclamation. This represents only 0.03`/ of the Ralson Creek w<<ter- <br />shed, or about 1.4 of the land owned by Cotter's parent compar~y. <br />In addition, the watershed is characterized by many soil types and <br />terrain configurations, including talus and outcrops of varyine rock <br />types. <br />• c. Please see Cotter's response to MLRB/McArdle comment E.6.a and <br />Pendleton Comment =1. <br />McArdle Comment E.8 <br />"Please provide the staff with a detailed description of the energy <br />dissipation structures to be placed on top of the waste dumps where <br />naturally occurring drainage channels join the waste dump. Please show <br />their placement on an appropriately detailed map." <br />Cotter Response <br />Please see Section 7.0 in Appendix E-4. <br />McArdle Comment E.10 <br />"Please describe in greater detail how the ventilation shafts will tie <br />sealed with a concrete plug." <br />Cotter Response <br />Please see Figure E-1. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.