Laserfiche WebLink
Susan Burgmaier -6- June 12, 2014 <br />W2: Please see Section 4.2 of the attached HBET stability analysis. <br />33. : Buckhorn's response focused exclusively on the compaction aspect of this <br />item (the Division agrees that the required compaction is being achieved), but failed to <br />address the issues of undrained shear strength and elevated pore pressures. These <br />topics of concern are addressed in greater detail in the attached 25- Feb -2014 Memo <br />and Summary that was also transmitted to BRL under TR -85. As requested in Item <br />32, above, BRL needs to provide a stability analysis for the proposed <br />modiFcations to Gob Pile #3 that considers undrained conditions, orjustifies <br />their being excluded from consideration, <br />B W2: Please see sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the attached HBET stability analysis. <br />34. This item is resolved. <br />Revised Maps <br />35. Items a -e were resolved with revised Map 15 -1. <br />36. Response accepted. <br />37. DRM Response accepted. BRL revised the map as requested. <br />a. New Item — Map 18, both the revised version and the currently approved <br />version, include a purple line (one long two short pattern) that is not identified in the <br />legend. Please revise the map legend to include the unidentirled purple line, <br />B W : The line is currently identified in the Legend, but due to scaling issues, does not <br />have the same one long, two short pattern. For clarity, the pattern has been corrected, <br />and has been relabeled 'Disturbed Area Boundary' in the Legend. Please see Map 18. <br />38. Response accepted. <br />39. Response accepted. <br />40. Response accepted items a -g. <br />h) BRL revised the Minimum Ditch Depth Requirements Table, lower middle of map, as <br />requested. There is one inconsistency remaining with the 1% section of the ditch <br />