Laserfiche WebLink
resulting FOS for both long-term stabilization of the and mechanical stabilization <br /> meet or exceed the minimum requirement of 1.3. However,additional clarification within Section 7 <br /> regarding the design seismic coefficient used along with methodology and rational should be provided in <br /> order to determine compliance with Section 30 of the Policies of the Mined Land Reclamation Board. <br /> Please see the"Division's Comments and/or Questions" Section found at the end this Memo for <br /> additional comments. <br /> • Division:Per Section 30 of the Policies of the MinedLand Reclamation Board,forgeneralized, <br /> assumed, or single test measurements for critical structures,the minimum recommendedFOS is <br /> 1.5 for static conditions and 1.3 for seismic conditions.No seismic conditions were provided or <br /> evaluated by KUE in the Report. In order to ensure all requirements of Section 30 are satisfied, <br /> please have KUE provide stability analyses for the Mine under seismic conditions for all active <br /> mining and post-mining scenarios under KUE recommendations. <br /> KUE:Long term steady state models for multiple bench geometries and active stabilization <br /> models have been run for both static andseismic and are included in AppendixD and G, <br /> respectively. <br /> After reviewing the updated Report and associated appendices, all provided stability analyses have met or <br /> exceeded the minimum requirements of Section 30 under static and seismic conditions. However,as <br /> discussed earlier in this Memo, not all FOS for every scenario discussed in the Report were provided in <br /> the discussions as well as some models not provided under the associated appendix. Please refer to the <br /> "Division's Comments and/or Questions" Section found at the end this Memo for specific scenarios that <br /> were not included in either the discussion within the Report or associated appendices for the Division's <br /> review. <br /> Division's Comments and/or Questions <br /> The following is a summary of the Division's comments/questions discussed and observed during this <br /> Memo. <br /> KUE Stability Recommendations and Associated Stability Analysis <br /> 1. During the Division's review of the applied seismic coefficient, it was observed that the value <br /> was not provided within discussion of the Report.Additionally it was unclear as to what <br /> methodology was used in determining the applied seismic coefficient. Please have KUE provide <br /> additional clarification within Section 7 regarding the design seismic coefficient value used along <br /> with the methodology and rational. <br /> 2. It was observed that the resulting FOS from multiple scenarios discussed in the Report were not <br /> provided in the text of the Report.Additionally, it was also observed that some of the associated <br /> models were not provided in the Report for the Divisions review. The resulting FOS and <br /> associated models for all scenarios discussed within the Report need to be provided within the <br /> associated Section and/or appendices.Please have KUE provide an updated Report including all <br /> resulting FOS within the discussions along with all associated models results. The following <br /> scenarios were not provided: <br /> o FOS result for bench slope geometry of 1.67:1 with reduced limestone cohesion (1,500 <br /> psf)under static conditions within discussion of Section 6 of the Report. <br /> o FOS result for bench slope geometries of 1:1, 1.4:1, and 1.67:1 with reduced cohesion <br /> (1,500 psf)under seismic conditions within discussion of Section 6 of the Report. <br /> o Model result for bench slope geometries of 1:1, 1.4:1, and 1.67:1 with reduced cohesion <br /> (1,500 psf)under static conditions within Appendix D of the Report. <br /> Mid Cortinent Limestone Quarry Geotechnical Review Memo February 6,2024 <br />