Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Mark A. Heffner - 3 - October 23, 1991 <br />Item No. ~ <br />The inspector reported in the inspection report that the discharge from <br />the Daniel's Sand Pit #2 wash punt was being deposited into the adjacent <br />Castle Concrete settling pond. In your response you stated that "the <br />settling pond is not Castle Concrete's and might be a grammatical error" <br />and that the settling pond is in Castle Concrete's "Sand Pit". This <br />statement is more confusing. Are you trying to say that the settling <br />pond is inside the Daniel's It2 permit boundary and it is permitted as <br />such or is it a settling pond inside Castle Concrete's permit' There is <br />nothing in the amendment .which states that Daniel's Sand Pit !t2 will <br />discharge from the wash plant to the settling pond located inside the <br />permit boundary of Castle Concrete. If there is anything in the <br />amendment which affirms your claim, please submit a copy. <br />Item No. 6 <br />The inspector stated in the inspection report that in the permit <br />application the plan tailed for 66.1 and an additional 8 acres to be <br />reclaimed in 10 years from July 7, 1980. You stated in your respens2 <br />that all previous statements were replaced in the 1985 amendment and that <br />the 1985 amendment was intended to virtually replace the previous <br />document. There is no statement in the amendment that states where the <br />Division agreed tha*. the amendment replaces the permit. This is as you <br />are well aware not a standard practice by the Division and only your own <br />interpretation. <br />An amendment is nothing but a change in the permit which increases the <br />acreage of the affected land or which has a significant effect upon the <br />aooroved reclamation plan but not a substitution to an already approved <br />permit. There is nothing in the amended reclamation plan which stated <br />that the 74.1 acres that should have been reclaimed in ten years were <br />amended during the 1985 amendment. If there is such an agreement between <br />Transit Mix and the Division, please provide us with the document so we <br />can correct the permit. <br />If it was stated that what was contained in Exhibit FF of the reclamation <br />plan for the permit application in 1980 is no longer valid because of the <br />1985 amendment, then the Division will correct the defect. I would like <br />to restate again that an amendment compliments a permit but does not <br />replace it. <br />Item No. 7 <br />The inspector stated that the reclamation plan called for 2-3 acres to be <br />reclaimed per year. Please refer to response to Item No. 6. <br />