Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Wallace H. Erickson <br />Response to Sixth Adequacy <br />October 11, 2011 <br />Page 26 <br />memorandum and has identified outstanding adequacy issues in a follow -up <br />memorandum, dated September 23, 2011. Copy of Mr. Hay's review memorandum, <br />dated September 23, 2011, is attached. Please address the adequacy issues identified by <br />Mr. Hays. <br />b. The work plans proposed in Attachments D -2, D -3, D -4 and D -6, have <br />been reviewed by staff member Tim Cazier. Mr. Cazier had previously generated a <br />technical review memorandum, dated August 22, 2011, which was attached to the <br />Division's fifth adequacy letter. Mr. Cazier has reviewed the Applicant's response to his <br />previous memorandum and has identified outstanding adequacy issues in a follow -up <br />memorandum, dated September 27, 2011. Copy of Mr. Cazier's review memorandum, <br />dated September 27, 2011, is attached. Please address the adequacy issues identified by <br />Mr. Cazier. <br />c. The work plans proposed in Attachments D -2, D -3, D -4 and D -6, have <br />been reviewed by staff member David Bird. Mr. Bird had previously generated a <br />technical review memorandum, dated August 23, 2011, which was attached to the <br />Division's fifth adequacy letter. Mr. Bird has reviewed the Applicant's response to his <br />previous memorandum and has identified outstanding adequacy issues, provided above in <br />adequacy issue number 13. Please address the adequacy issues identified by Mr. Bird. <br />d. Several of the work plans discuss the need for future investigations and the <br />gathering of additional information before finalizing a specific plan. Such plans are <br />conceptual in nature and fail to provide the information required by the Act and Rules. <br />However, given the Cease and Desist Orders associated with the unresolved violations, <br />the Applicant is somewhat limited to conceptual plans where additional geotechnical <br />and /or geochemical information are required. Therefore, the Division could accept <br />conceptual work plans if the plans include a thorough description of the process for <br />information collection, analysis, submittal for Division approval and, implementation <br />upon receiving Division approval, and a commitment to submit the newly collected <br />information, updated analysis and resulting finalized designs to the Division through <br />either the Technical Revision or Amendment process. The absence of such commitment, <br />specifically stated within each of the individual work plans, is grounds for denial of the <br />conceptual work plan. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 17.a. <br />See contemporaneously submitted Response to September 23 Hays Memo. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 17.b. <br />See contemporaneously submitted Response to September 27 Cazier Memo. <br />DEN 97,629,117v1 10 -11 -11 <br />GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW ® WWW.GTLAW.COM <br />