2014-02-10_REVISION - C1996083 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 2/10/2014
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review Response
• From: J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc.
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: TR85
• Email Name: SLB
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Susan Burgmaier -3- February 3, 2014
BOW2: Please see Buckhorn's response in attached document.
4. DRMS: In the Results Discussion section, Buckhorn refers to the long term FoS of
1.5 required by Rule 4.09.1. That rule is specific to disposal of excess spoil. For
Coal Mine Waste Banks, Rule 4.10.4(2) applies, which requires a minimum static
safety factor of 1.5 (not limited to the " "long term" condition). Please revise the
Results Discussion paragraph of the December 5, 2013 Suckhorn report to
reference Rule 4,10,4(2) rather than 4,09,1, (The Division concurs that the
Drying Area itself need not be held to a FoS of 1.5; what is proposed with TR -85
represents a significant improvement in the handling of wet coal mine waste over
methods used historically at the site.)
BOW2: Please see Buckhorn's response in attached document.
5. RMS: Please revise the Table of Contents for Volume IX with the revised
page numbering and addition of the December 5, 2013 Suckhorn Geotech
analysis proposed in TR -85,
BOW2: Please see the revised Table of Contents.
6. DRMS: Please revise page 12 to include details ofthe configuration of the
end - dumped gob material, such as the maximum slope, maximum height
distance from the edge of the compacted bench, etc,
BOW2: Please see revised page 12.
7. DRM : At the top of revised page 13 (Volume IX), a paragraph break has been
removed for the sentence that begins, "Coal mine waste materials..." If deletion
of the paragraph break at the top of page 13 was unintentional, please
restore the break,
BOW2: Please see revised pages 13 -14.
8. DRMS: The first full paragraph on revised page 13 references " Buckhorn Geotech
recommendations ". In light of the number of Buckhorn studies that have been
incorporated to date, please identify, in the second full paragraph of page
13, the specific study that established the 3h;1 vslopes on Gob Pile #2 (we
believe it is the study dated 22- Sep -2008 and approved under TR -56).
BOW2: Please see revised page 13.
9. DRM : The second full paragraph on revised page 13 includes recommendations
that appear to be verbatim from the Buckhorn reports. Please revise the second
full paragraph of page 13 so that the recommendations of Suckhorn are