1995-08-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981041

Home Browse Search

3 evaluate possible cost effective treatment approaches for reducing salt loading in the Colorado River is referenced. It is stated that construction of a salt removal/minimization facility was determined to be economically infeasible at the time. Have costs or other conditions (including re-activation of mining in the North Portal area) changed to the extent that treatment might now be warranted? Are there atlernate methods of treatment that would be more feasible? It would appear that discharging a portion of the water currently discharged from outfall 002 through outfall 015 instead would significantly reduce the operation's salt contribution to the river, however this outfall is not currently being used, and the application states only that "water. . .may be pumped from the 2 West Portals and discharged to an unnamed tributary to the Colorado River at outfall 015 . " The operator should assess whether the assumptions regarding salinity treatment infeasibility are still valid, and should revise the narrative characterizing discharge from 015 Outfall as an optional possibility to make it a permit commitment, with a specified timeframe for activation. The 1386 ton per year projected salt load set forth on page 217d should be adjusted to reflect the recent reopening of the Roadside North Portal . Rule 2.04 .9 . 2 .05 . 3( 5) . 2 .05 .4( 2) (d) 1 . On Page 187 of the application it is stated that the material needed to cover the Roadside Refuse Pile (approximately 17 ,000 cu. yds. ) would come from "the same area previously used to cover field trials as shown on RS-11-00811 . We cannot locate a copy of RS-11- 008. Please provide a copy of the exhibit, along with appropriate narrative and sample data to document the location of a sufficient quantity of suitable cover material . 2 . The relationship between projected topsoil stockpile volumes in Table 2 . 05. 4 A, and the refuse cover material balance table on Page 186c is not entirely clear, and some explanation is requested. For example, the table on Page 186c indicates that 90, 000 cy of material would be salvaged from CRDA No. 3 prior to construction, sufficient to replace the required 18 inch cover thickness over the 35.67 acre refuse area. However, Table 2.05. 4 A indicates that 90 ,000 cy of topsoil would be stored in Stockpile #12 , to be replaced at an average cover depth of 12 inches on 55 . 5 acres at CRDA No. 3 . In addition, Exhibit 52 depicts two topsoil stockpiles in the vicinity of CRDA No. 3 , Al2a and #12b, rather than the single stockpile #12 referenced in Table 2 . 05. 4 A. Please explain these apparent discrepancies and revise the tables and narrative as appropriate. 3 . The proposed topsoil replacement depth for disturbances associated with the CRDA's (roads, ditches, ponds , etc. ) should be specified. 4 . The reclamation plan for the refuse areas specifies that the 6"