Laserfiche WebLink
Name of Addressee <br />Page 5 <br />Date <br />BRL Response: Please see revised Volume IX certification. <br />Division Response: This item has been adeqately addressed. <br />11. Division Initial Comment (3/11/2015): Page 4a of the approved PAP illustrates the changes to <br />Gob Piles #2 and #4 that have been approved under various revisions. Please update this diagram <br />to reflect changes made subsequent to TR -76. <br />BRL Response: Please see revised Page 4a. <br />Division Response: This item has been adequately addressed. <br />12. Division Initial Comment (3/11/2015): Page 5 has been revised to include the East and North <br />expansion proposed under TR -98. The text indicates that no extension of the underdrain is <br />necessary for East and North expansion. According to Section A -A' (Figure 1), the pile is being <br />extending further up valley. Please explain why no extension is necessary. <br />BRL Response: Figure 2 as referenced on page 5 states that the underdrain would be extended <br />if seeps were/are encountered. No seeps have been encountered. The original underdrain as <br />installed was done in an effort to be conservative. No seeps were encountered, not have there <br />been since the original underdrain was installed. Nonetheless, it makes sense to add the <br />underdrain hatch and directions to Maps 1-3 and Figure 2. Please see revised Map 21-3 and <br />figure 2. <br />Division Response: Figure 2 and Map 21-3 were revised to show the extension of the underdrain <br />up the valley, as requested; however, the text on the map directs that the extension will be <br />made only if seeps are encountered. This zone of Gob Pile #2 qualifies as a Valley Fill <br />configuration, bringing the requirements of Rule 4.09.2 into play. Subsection (2) of this rule <br />requires that subdrainage systems shall be constructed along the natural drainage system, from <br />the toe to the head of the fill. (Any associated lateral drains are to be constructed if areas of <br />seepage are found.) Please revise the map text to show that the underdrain will be <br />extended, as required. <br />13. Division Initial Comment (3/11/2015): On Page 6, in the first paragraph, the disturbed area for <br />Gob Pile #2-4 has been revised from 58.0 (approved) to 50.9 (proposed). Please provide an <br />explanation for this decrease. <br />BRL Response: Please see revised page 6. A revision to the approved disturbed area has been <br />corrected and reverted back to the approved acreage. <br />Division Response: This item has been adequately addressed. <br />