Laserfiche WebLink
126152 ~KESWICK, SIMON L ~DIR ~10/O1/91 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />126153 ~NOTTER, ALEXANDER C ~DIR 09/24/90 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />126154 SCOTT BARRETT, JONATHA~DIR ~10/O1/91 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />129821 BAKER, KENNETH ~DIR 07/15/92 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />129824 SNOWDON, DAVID J ~DIR 09/24/92 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />131971 ~MENZIES GOW, R IAN IDIR 05/20/93 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />139912 THOMAS, CHRISTOPHER J ~DIR 09/30/94 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />139913 IROBBINS, GEORGE W ~DIR 05/31/95 I12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />139914 ICOMPSON, STEPHEN ~DIR 05/31/95 ~12/09/96~avsky0la~ <br />*** A recent conversation with personnel of Seneca Coal Company <br />indicates that the structure of Peabody may have significantly <br />changed recently. The items noted above may be only one small <br />change to the companies noted above. <br />31. Table 3-2 was updated to include NOV's C-95-027 and C-96-010. The <br />table should be further updated to include subsequent NOV's C-96-20 and <br />C-97-001. <br />41. b) Text on amended page 9-3 indicates that CRDA #1 soil sample <br />locations are shown on Exhibits 23 and 9A. Sample locations are not <br />shown on 9A, but are shown on 9B. Geotechnical test hole locations are <br />shown on 9A. The text should be amended. <br />42. Soil salvage description for CRDA 2 and CRDA 3 was appropriately <br />modified on page 9-3, but some additional clarification is requested. <br />Based on Exhibit 51 stripping area boundaries for CRDA #2, it would <br />appear that designated salvage areas within the refuse area disturbance <br />boundary have already been covered by refuse. It is assumed that soil <br />was salvaged from these areas prior to disturbance by refuse area <br />construction. This should be clarified in the text, and if no further <br />soil salvage is to be undertaken within the CRDA #2 boundary, the text <br />should so state. <br />46. Questions regarding soil samples S-96-1 through 5-96-3 were <br />addressed. SAR values for the multiple 2' sample intervals at the three <br />sample locations range from 5, which would be suitable for the top 6" <br />layer, to over 30, which would be unsuitable, even for underlying refuse <br />cover material. Additional samples would appear to be necessary to <br />demonstrate that a sufficient volume of material suitable for refuse <br />