2016-05-04_REVISION - M1977300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Technical Revision 23, Mining Permit M-1977-300 Mr. Robert Noren Disposal of Alluvial Fill Cotter Corporation(N.S.L) 4.3 Options Comparative Analyses As discussed in Section 3.2, three disposal alternatives for the alluvial fill material were presented in TR-14. Comparative analyses of the three disposal options are presented in Tables 4-2 through 4-4. The symbol "N" is used to signify "Neutral,"while "+" and "++" are used to signify how strongly each option performs relative to the other on each key design criterion. Placement of the alluvial fill material in the WRPs is favorable versus the other options shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. Table 4-2 Disposal Alternative Comparison Between Placement in WRPs and Placement in the CV Glory Hole Placement in WRPs ++ + N + ++ Placement in CV Glory Hole Ease of Material Handling Ease of Material Handling Worker Safety Worker Safety Public Safety Public Safety Isolation From Surface Water Isolation From Surface Water Isolation From Impacts to Ralston 11, Isolation From Impacts to Creek Ralston Creek Available Space . Available Space t Minimize Truck Traffic Impacts Minimize Truck Traffic Impacts to Adjacent County Land(i.e. to Adjacent County Land (i.e. Bear Tooth Ranch) Bear Tooth Ranch) Costilk Cost Table 4-3 Disposal Alternative Comparison Between Placement in the WRPs and Offsite Disposal Placement in WRPs ++ + N I + ! ++ Offsite Disposal Ease of Material Handling IIII Ease of Material Handling Worker Safety Worker Safety Public Safety Public Safety Isolation From Surface WaterII Isolation From Surface Water Isolation From Impacts to Ralston Isolation From Impacts to Creek Ralston Creek Available Space Available Space Minimize Truck Traffic Impacts , Minimize Truck Traffic Impacts to Adjacent County Land(i.e. to Adjacent County Land (i.e. Bear Tooth Ranch) Bear Tooth Ranch) Cost sik. Cost December 28, 2015 6 Engineering Analytics, Inc.