My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36281
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36281
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:54 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:41:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/18/1998
Doc Name
RESPONSED TO BLM ISSUES WITH THE COMMERCIAL MINE PLAN
From
AMERICAN SODA
To
BLM WITH COPY PROVIDED TO DMG
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.
/
45
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
Light Plant - a hosssing area for power and lighting egssipsnent for night operation. <br />Well, Drill Rig, Backhoe, and Winch Truck -are self-explanatory. <br />42. Section 3.1, page 3-2 - 4 million ft~ of nahcolite at a density of 125 lbs/fr3 equates to 500 <br />million pounds or 250,000 tons per cavity. <br />The difference is a function of rounding numbers for presentation in the text. <br />Resource calculations are being updated and will be included in the response to <br />BLM comments. <br />43. Section 4.1, page 4-3 - "Quarterly reports will be prepared...." For whom? BLM? <br />The reports are expected to be provided to BLM and EPA and would be provided to <br />other jurisdictional agencies as necessary. <br />44. Section 4.2, page 4-3 - "If subsidence effects aze substantially greater than expected..." <br />Please define "substantially greater". At what point does this become an issue such that the <br />mining strategy would be adjusted? What does "adjusted" mean? How will it be adjusted? <br />Subsidence is notoriously difficult to predict. Conservative modeling and <br />numerical analyses that have been conducted indicate that subsidence should be <br />minimal (1-3 feet over 100-200 years). Additional work on realistic scenarios <br />indicates Tess than 1 foot of subsidence is expected. The point here was that <br />American Soda was acknowledging the difficulties in predicting subsidence and was <br />indicating that if unanticipated impacts occurred, they would address those impacts <br />cooperatively with the agencies. If this statement is problematic, it can be <br />deleted/disregarded. <br />45. Section 4.3, page 4-5 - "Specific well locations and target monitoring horizons for each <br />well will be determined in consultation with ....." When will this be done? Before the PDEIS? <br />Again, this was an attempt to allow for the agencies to hnve input as to tl:e specific <br />location and target horizon. Based on initial consultation with the agencies, <br />American Soda was committing to the establishment of at least one upgradient and <br />one downgradient well per panel, probably near the dissolution surface. Since there <br />are numerous locations that could be appropriate, it doesn't seem that t{:e exact <br />location is necessary for the EIS. For pssrposes of t{se EIS, nssume the target horizon <br />will be the lower agssifer near the dissolution ssnface. If it is necessary to have the <br />specific location for the 0-5 year panel, please advise and it can be determined. <br />American Soda will establish the two wells at whatever points are deemed to be <br />most representative by the various agencies. It zuos~ld not be prudent to arbitrarily <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.