My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL37758
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL37758
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:57:46 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 9:18:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984065
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/12/1987
Doc Name
Midterm Review Findings Document
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
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.
/
6
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
test plots, which are designed to demonstrate that 4 feet of cover is <br />not necessary on the pile. Upon review of the study design (page <br />4-71a) it is apparent that the sample plots will not approximate the <br />reclamation plan. The study calls for test plots, with 1 foot of <br />coarse material followed by up to 3 feet (0-3 feet) of topsoil on a <br />flat surface. The reclamation plan calls for 0-3 feet of topsoil on a <br />flat surface. The reclamation plan calls for 0-3 feet of coarse <br />material covered by 1 foot of topsoil on a 2:1 slope. In addition, the <br />fertilizer and mulching rates are different in the study versus the <br />reclamation plan. The revegetation study plots should be revised to <br />more closely approximate final reclamation conditions, so that more <br />meaningful results can be generated. <br />9. On page 4-751 a post-mining land use of "light industrial" is mentioned <br />as a possibility. This should be deleted unless it has been <br />specifically approved by the Division. <br />10. The monitoring discussion on page 4-90a should be updated to include <br />the specific monitoring requirements as included in permit stipulations. <br />11. Within the facilities relocation TR, Phase A production is increased <br />from 600,000 tpy to 1,325,000 tpy and refuse generation is decreased <br />from 2% to 1%. The result is that no additional refuse is generated <br />although production is doubled. NCEC should justify this discussion <br />and explain how refuse generation will be halved. <br />V. Bond <br />As indicated previously in this memo, some problems exist with the NCEC permit <br />which hinder calculation of the bond. The lack of clarity and the poor volume <br />calculations are examples of such problems. A summary of bond calculations is <br />contained in the table below. Based on these calculations, NCEC has <br />sufficient bond to cover the existing disturbance, and would have enough <br />coverage to construct all Phase A facilities except the rail spur and <br />loadout. As previously mentioned, this loadout could not be constructed until <br />the refuse area or other disposal site for ballast is approved. Additional <br />bond would need to be submitted at that time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.