Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />RESPONSE: Page 2.05.3-13 has been revised to address this issue. <br />d. Has approval been made by MLRD for disposal of pond cleanings on <br />the waste disposal site? If so, what are the handling methods to <br />be used? The material should be laid to dry and later :;xed with <br />coarse material to ensure that an impermeable layer is not formed <br />on the disoosal site area. <br />RESPONSE: Page 2.05.3-37 has been revised to address this issue. <br />e. Figure 57 - The typical portal seal should be drawn in greater <br />detail. What material surrounds the rebar? If the material is <br />cinder block, is grout to the placed between the cinder block? Is <br />a hydraulic head expected behind the seal? Does the No. 9 Mine <br />portal seal incorporate the elements of Figure 57? <br />• RESPONSE: Page 2.05.4-2 has been revised to address the portal <br />seal issue. Exhibit 38, No. 5 Portal Bulkhead Design has also been <br />added to the permit application. <br />The No. 9 portal sealing incorporated the activities approved at <br />the time of sealing, as addressed on page 2.05.4-17 of the permit <br />application. <br />f. Page 2.05.6-17 - Effects of mine discharge on surface water quality <br />- The same detail for derivation of the loading factors needs to be <br />included in this permit application as in the original. This <br />loading should be done specifically for the No. 5 and 6 Mine. Also <br />SAR concentration prediction should be developed for the Q7, 10 <br />flow of the Williams Fork and Yampa Rivers. In this section, no <br />mention if the high SAR's present in the waters of the 5 and 6 <br />• mines is noted. <br />39-10 <br />