My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-09-09_REVISION - C1996083
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2010-09-09_REVISION - C1996083
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:21:56 PM
Creation date
9/10/2010 8:48:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
9/9/2010
Doc Name
Second Adequacy Review Letter
From
DRMS
To
Bowie Resources LLC
Type & Sequence
TR67
Email Name
JJD
SB1
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.
/
2
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
No response was required. <br />Rule 4.05.2 - Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations <br />4. Please provide text on page Exh-8-238 that states that the sediment control for the Terror <br />Creek vent shaft pad is a small area exemption and provide on that page and on Map 42 the <br />number of the SAE designation. <br />This issue is resolved. Revised page Exh-8-238 and revised Map 42 were provided in the <br />August 25, 2010 submittal. <br />5. On page Exh-8-243, a tie back distance of 125 feet is used in the Sedcad design for the silt <br />fence. However, this tie back distance is not shown on Map 42. Although a berm is in place so <br />that runoff does not go around the silt fence, the berm would obviously not act the same as a <br />silt fence in passing water through while filtering out sediment. Please explain the use of the tie <br />back distance. <br />This issue is resolved. Twenty five feet of silt fence should handle the designed runoff. <br />6. The Sedcad design for TR-67 assumes that there will not be any runoff from the upland area <br />due to the heavy oak brush cover. Based on afield inspection of the site by the Division, this <br />appears to be a reasonable assumption. However, if evidence becomes available that enough <br />upland area runoff is finding its way to the shaft pad, BRL will need to design and construct an <br />appropriate upland diversion. <br />No response was required. <br />Rule 4.07 - Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Openings <br />7. Rule 4.07 requires that all drilled holes and underground openings be permanently sealed. <br />Please add detailed plans to the permit application describing how the shaft will be <br />permanently sealed when it is no longer needed. <br />This issue is resolved. BRL responded that the approved shaft sealing design is already in the <br />permit application. <br />Sincerely, <br />Hseph ash <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Jim Stover P.E. (J.E. Stover & Associates) <br />c:/word2007/bowie2/tr67adeg2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.