Laserfiche WebLink
The fuel tank at CRDA #1 mentioned on p. 171 and nearby topsoil pile <br /> illustrated on Exhibit 9B appear to be outside of the current surface <br /> water and sediment control system. If true, revision ,of the permit is <br /> required proposing sediment control measures or an exemption. <br /> �^ The narrative on page 1790 should be revised to include the following: <br /> Q 1 . As long as CRDA #1 is "under construction" ditches may not be <br /> in their final position. <br /> 2. All ditches for CRDA #1 , however, whether in final or temp <br /> pos ' are esi led and will be maintained to safel <br /> c rry 100-year, 24-hour events and will be equipped with en <br /> to insure stability in their <br /> current position. <br /> Rule 2.05.4 <br /> (a) through (g) We suggest that paragraph 1 on p. 186 be deleted since Or— <br /> it is contradicted by subsequent narrative. <br /> Requirements for CRDA #2 and the Roadside Refuse Area need to be added bic <br /> to Figure 2.05.4A. <br /> (b) The cost figure given in the first paragraph on p. 186 should be L1(< <br /> revised to reflect the current cost estimate and the current <br /> reclamation cost estimate should be placed in Appendix U. <br /> Rule 2.05.6 <br /> (3)(b)(ii ) Mention is made on pp 206-207 of the use of flocculants but <br /> none are mentioned specifically. MLRO and WOCD both require <br /> identification of any such chemicals whose use may affect the nature of <br /> the water being discharged, information about them, e.g, material <br /> safety data sheets , and a description of how these chemicals are <br /> administered. The probable hydrologic consequences of the use of these <br /> flocculants should should also be covered in the permit application <br /> package. <br /> (3) (b)(iv ) Roadside/Cameo Mine's NPDES Permit expired June 30 , 1990. .N ,( <br /> The mine must furnish evidence of the renewal of this permit and that <br /> the WOCO is aware of the mine's use of flocculants for treatment of <br /> surface runoff and mine water prior to its discharge. <br /> Table 2.05 .6A on p. 211 is in error. Effluent limitations in the �<< <br /> Roadside/Cameo NPDES permit do not include manganese, include greater <br /> TSS allowances , but impose oil and grease limitations. <br /> The monitoring plan described on p. 207 does not indicate when the AHR <br /> will be submitted. Please specify an annual submittal date. <br /> The organization of Section 2.05.6 of the permit application is <br /> confusing and neeas improvement. Considerable subsidence information <br /> is included on page 214 through 223, preceding the discussion of parks <br /> and historic places on page 223. Thus it is separated from other <br /> subsidence discussion beginning on page 224. Organization of the <br /> document would be improved by consolidating the subsidence narrative. <br /> 9590E/scg <br /> -9- <br />