My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-02_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (10)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010089
>
2011-06-02_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (10)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:06 PM
Creation date
6/3/2011 8:50:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010089
IBM Index Class Name
APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
Doc Date
6/2/2011
Doc Name
Response to Preliminary Adequacy Review
From
Western Fuels Association
To
DRMS
Email Name
MLT
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.
/
63
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
Response -Appendix 2.05.3(3)-1 has been renamed Appendix 2.05.3(4)-1. Ponds NHN <br />001 and 002 have been redesigned to avoid short circuiting. <br />13. Figures 1-4 of Appendix 2.05.3(3)-1 show that the sediment pond primary discharge pipes <br />will extend beyond the permit boundary. Please revise these figures to show that the <br />discharge pipes will not extend past the permit boundary. <br />Response -Appendix 2.05.3(3)-1 has been renamed Appendix 2.05.3(4)-1. The figures <br />have been revised to show that the discharge pipes will not extend past the permit <br />boundary. <br />14. The submitted pond designs are based only on the 10 year-24 hour precipitation event. <br />Please provide pond designs that also use the 25 year-24 hour precipitation event to show <br />compliance with Rule 4.05.9(7)(d) regarding the minimum elevation difference of one foot <br />between the design event water level flowing through the emergency spillway and the top of <br />the embankment. <br />Response - The ponds have been redesigned to show compliance with Rule 4.05.9(7)(d). <br />15. Please confirm that the three riser pipe diameters are different than the barrel diameters for <br />each of the three sediment ponds. <br />Response - There is no riser in the revised design for the sediment ponds. The design <br />provides for one pipe for gated discharge. <br />16. Please revise the permit text and pond drawings to show that anti-piping barriers will be <br />used on the primary discharge pipes that go through the pond embankment, as required <br />under Rule 4.05.9(2). <br />Response - The permit text and drawings have been revised to show that anti piping <br />barriers will be used on the primary discharge pipes that go through the pond <br />embankment, as required under Rule 4.05.9(2). <br />17. The Sedcad designs contain two runs for the "Collection Ditch Design for Pond NHN-002 <br />South". The first design run appears to have used parameters from the previous run for <br />"Collection Ditch Design for Pond NHN-002 North". Please eliminate the incorrect Sedcad <br />design run for NHN-002 South. <br />Response - The second run was for the rip-rapped option. <br />18. On Map 2.05.3(3)-1, Surface Water Hydrology, the acreage for subwatershed SW-MD is <br />shown as being 103.02 acres. This watershed is appropriate for the design of culvert C-6 but <br />the design of culvert C-6A should also take into account the subwatershed of Meehan Draw <br />and the undisturbed wetland. Please revise the Sedcad design for culvert C-6A accordingly. <br />Response - The reference to culvert C-6 in the comment probably refers to culvert C-6A <br />and the reference to culvert C-6A refers to culvert C- 6B. The watersheds are correctly <br />shown for culvert C-6A. SEDCAD design for C-6B has been revised to include watershed <br />SW-MD2 which has been added to Map 2.05.3(3)-1. <br />Response to First Adequacy Review Page 35
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.