My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL44436
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL44436
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:13:14 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 1:01:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/25/2003
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings of Compliance for SL2
From
Phase I
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.
/
52
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
Irene Vento Coulter. Paula Coulter represents Ms. Irene Vento Coulter. Representatives of The Corley <br />Company, and Ms. Saunders and Ms. Coulter of The Vento Group have actively participated in the <br />bond release process. Their concerns and issues are summarized below. <br />Correspondence from The Corley Company was received on 28 September, 18 October, 12 November, <br />15 November, 21 November, and 5 December 2002. The 28 September, 18 October and 15 November <br />2002 letters addressed the 69kV powerline from Florence to the Southfield substation. The Corley <br />Company had initially requested that the powerline be removed; however, this request was withdrawn <br />on 15 November 2002. A second issue The Corley Company raised in these letters and the 21 <br />November letter addressed the revegetation plan and the planting of shrubs and trees on the reclaimed <br />areas. Correspondence from the Division of Wildlife was received on 16 December 2002 regarding <br />this topic and will be considered if EFCI submits a revision to the permit. However, revegetation is not <br />a Phase I bond release criterion; and therefore, it is not addressed any further in this findings document. <br />During the 13 November inspection The Corley Company identified several areas of concern on the <br />reclaimed mine site that they also addressed in the correspondence dated 12 November 2002. First, The <br />Corley Company requested that the coal fines along the east perimeter fence be removed. In response <br />to this request, EFCI removed the coal fines. <br />The Corley Company was also concerned about potentially contaminated soil in the fuel storage tank <br />area. In response to this concern, EFCI hired an independent contractor to conduct soil testing. The <br />investigation was conducted pursuant to procedures of the Colorado Department of Public Health and <br />Environment (CDPHE) and the Oil Inspection Section (OIS) of the Colorado Department of Labor and <br />Employment. Petroleum-contaminated soils (pcs) were identified based on the laboratory test results <br />for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). EFCI excavated these soils and transported them to the <br />Phantom Landfill, a CDPHE approved facility. The contractor tested and excavated pcs materials until <br />the TPH were below the actionable level (500 mg/kg). EFCI provided the Division with a copy of the <br />contractor's final remediation report on Apri123, 2003. <br />The Corley Company identified two roads on their ranch property that EFCI used to access the Corley <br />Mine well and monitoring well MW-65. The Corley Company requested that the two roads be <br />Southfield Mine Permit No. C-1981-014 <br />SL-2 Findings 5 25 April 2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.