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
103. Section 2.3.2.1 -What is the current use of the existing road and by whom? <br />The Garfield County P.oad and Bridge Department provided a 1994 traffic count for <br />County Road 215, which is presented on Table 7-15 (p. 7-61). The light use of this <br />road includes local area residents/ranchers, Unocal employees who commute to the <br />company office at the top of the valley, oil and gas workers, and possibly tourists. <br />Access into the Parachute Site itself is restricted by a locked gate. Only caretaking <br />staff and personnel involved in the closure and cleanup of the site would access the <br />Parachute Site on a daily basis. <br />104. What aze the current county road maintenance costs? Do the counties think that <br />increased weight and/or volume of trucks hauling materials to and from the sites during <br />construction and operation will alter these costs, even though these roads aze not at capacity? <br />Will the increase in traffic cause maintenance costs to rise? <br />This information has not been gathered to date. Rio Blanco County initially <br />expressed concerns about increased maintenance costs associated with the initial <br />proposal for development of the entire project at the Piceance Site, with product <br />hauling by truck along Piceance Creek Road. When the pipeline was proposed, the <br />county seemed satisfied that this would substantially reduce road wear and <br />maintenance costs. It could be argued that construction and operations traffic could <br />increase these costs, but to date, neither county has raised this as an important issue <br />that has to b0 addressed in the EIS. <br />105. Section 6.4 -Please provide information on vehicle access/access roads that will access <br />the pipeline for maintenance activities/ repairs, as well as volume projections. <br />Pipeline operation and maintenance-related vehicle trips would include one part- <br />time worker driving the length of the pipeline on an occasional/as-needed basis to <br />inspect block valves, meters, etc. Traffic along the existing pipeline corridor (dirt) <br />access road associated with this activity would comprise one trip per day under <br />normal or routine circumstances. No new permanent roads or road segments will <br />be constructed for maintenance access. <br />Employee and Public Health and Safety Issues <br />106. Gas line leakage or ruptures: What is American Soda's leak detection program? How will <br />they respond in an emergency? Will they place warning signs along the ROW? What <br />construction standards will be conducted to minimize pipeline failure? <br />To 6e addressed later. <br />39 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.