REV97689 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the runoff meets effluent standards, or grassing the peripheral area, in essence fencing in the site with a sediment control design. Please feel free to call me if you have questions. Items 27 through 30: Satisfied. Thank you for your response. Item 31: See response #50. Item 32: Thank you for your response. The Division notes that the revised pages in Appendix B as submitted, commits EFCI to maximum drv density instead of Proctor density testing for the refuse pile. Currently Proctor testing is indicated on page 9 of Exhibit 18. Item 33: Item satisfied. Thank you for your response. Item 34: Regarding the projected angle and actual angle of draw, please refer to EFCI's "SEMI-ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE MONITORING REPORT for May - October 1991, where in the 'Discussion' section, the author indicates the angle of draw is "approximately 27 to 29 degrees." Field measurements together with Division calculations indicate that a more conservative upper ended number for the angle of draw needs to be represented in the permit. Even with a lesser angle than 29, that of 26 degrees, as is currently indicated on Map 17, the subsidence effect is off permit boundaries. The problem seems to be one of geometry, in that the subsidence shape is more ovate and your permit boundary more angular in shape, therefore boundary geometries do not match. Measurements by EFCI cannot be discounted when considering subsidence effects. By EFCI's own admission, the angle of draw range is beyond 20-25 degrees, therefore, the Division's position is that the permit boundary incorporate the conservative 29 degrees angle of draw, and be so indicated on a revised Map 17. Item 35: Thank you for your response, however, the scale of 1"= 400' for a subsidence map is visually ineffective in illustrating subsidence effects, since only three seam lines are visible on the map. Therefore, please revise the map to a 1" = 200' contour scale as was originally requested in the Midterm review. Item 36: Regarding coal stockpile bonding; it is the Division's policy to bond for 50$ of the stockpile, since the Division is not in the position to market coal and would have to hire someone to market the coal, haul the coal off site, etc. Therefore, please include in your ACZ bond estimate, a 50~ coal stockpile bonding amount. * At this point your response numbering sequence is off by one from the original Mid-term Review sequence. Item 37: Included in response 36 per your April 1993 response letter. item 38: This response is incomplete, due to there was no Map 29 included in the reply. Please forward Map 29 to the Division for