My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-10-01_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2008-10-01_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:36:48 PM
Creation date
10/2/2008 1:14:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/1/2008
Doc Name
Review and Response Memo
From
Dan Mathews
To
Marcia Talvitie
Type & Sequence
TR57
Email Name
DTM
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
<br />support use of limits based on % by weight. Also, please specify in footnote <br />to Table 2 of Appendix 2.04.9-I1, whether reported coarse fragment % <br />values are based on weight or volume, and provide detail regarding the <br />procedure used. Finally, please specify a Lift B upper limit of 35% by <br />volume for individual sample locations, or provide rationale/documentation <br />to support the 50% individual/ 25% average limits proposed. The <br />methodology associated with the proposed limits should be consistent with <br />that used to obtain the values reported in Table 2 ofAttachment 2.04.9-11. <br />In the 7/31/08 amendment package, we note the following: <br />• Narrative Table 2.04.9-2, Footnote 5, was amended to specify that coarse <br />fraction limits are based on percent by volume. <br />• Lift B upper limit of 35% by volume for individual sample locations was <br />specified in Narrative Table 2.04.9-2, Footnote 5. <br />• The requested clarification of Table 2 of Attachment 2.04.9-11 was <br />provided in amended Table 2 of amended Attachment 2.05.4(2)(d)-1. <br />Attachment 2.04.9-11 appears to have been duplicative, and was properly <br />deleted. <br />• The methodology associated with the proposed coarse fraction limits in <br />Narrative Table 2.04.9-2 appears to be consistent with the methods used to <br />obtain the values reported in amended Table 2 of amended Attachment <br />2.05.4(2)(d)-1. <br />Item Resolved. <br />13. c) The Division pointed out apparent discrepancies between narrative on page <br />2.04.9-23, which indicated an average Lift A salvage thickness of approximately <br />7.2 inches for non-prime farmland soils north of BB Road, and Table 2.04.9-6 <br />listings for Lloyd and WFC properties, which indicated an 18" Lift A thickness <br />for non-prime farmland areas. The Division made the following request: <br />Please clarify the issues regarding salvage lifts and thicknesses (for soil <br />horizons as well as underlying Bench 1 overburden) for the non prime <br />farmland areas, and ensure that tables, text, and maps are consistent. <br />Please describe how the bottom of each lift will be identified for salvage in <br />the field. <br />In the amendment package, we note the following: <br />• Narrative on amended pages 2.04.9-26 and 2.04.9-27 explains that a single <br />mixed topsoil lift averaging 19 inches in thickness will be taken from <br />these non-prime farmland soils, with a range in thickness of from 8 inches <br />to 38 inches. Bottom of lift B is defined by either bedrock or significant <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.