2024-03-29_REVISION - M1982121

• Permit No: M1982121
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/29/2024
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review Response #2
• From: RMR Aggregates, Inc
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: TR6
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

KiLDUFF RMR Aggregates, Inc.
U N D E R G R D U N D Revisions Table-Rock Failure Analyses and Stabilization Report
E N G I N E E R I N G,I N C. Mid Continent Limestone Quarry
7) While not discussed in this Memo or in the Section 7 Blasting Impacts to
Report, RMR is approved for blasting per the Stability has been added to address
permit. Please have RMR or KUE address the the potential impact blasting may
potential impact blasting may have on the have on the stability of the Mine.
stability of the Mine and have it modeled within
the provided active mining and post-mining
analyses.
8) When reviewing the associated stability analysis Stability models in Appendix G have
o with mechanical stabilization under Appendix G, been revised to achieve a FOS of
it was observed that none of the scenarios 1.5 static and 1.3 seismic.
provided met the minimum FOS of 1.5 as stated
in the Report.
0
9) Per Section 30 of the Policies of the Mined Land Long term steady state models for
Reclamation Board, for generalized,assumed, or multiple bench geometries and
single test measurements for critical structures, active stabilization models have
the minimum recommended FOS is 1.5 for static been run for both static and seismic
o conditions and 1.3 for seismic conditions.No and are included in Appendix D and
seismic conditions were provided or evaluated G, respectively.
by KUE in the Report. In order to ensure all
requirements of Section 30 are satisfied,please
have KUE provide stability analyses for the
wMine under seismic conditions for all active
�
mining and post-mining scenarios under KUE
recommendations.
Technical Revision (TR-6)Adequacy Review-2
Sect. No. Requested Revision KUE Action or Response
>_ 10) During the Division's review of the applied Further discussion of reasoning and
seismic coefficient, it was observed that the how the seismic design coefficient
13 value was not provided within discussion of was selected has been included in
0 the Report. Additionally it was unclear as to section 7.
what methodology was used in determining
0- the applied seismic coefficient. Please have
E KUE provide additional clarification within
Section 7 regarding the design seismic
coefficient value used along with the
00 methodology and rational.
11A) FOS result for bench slope geometry of FOS results added to Table 6
1.67:1 with reduced limestone cohesion
o (1,500 psf)under static conditions within
discussion of Section 6 of the Report.
N
1113) FOS result for bench slope geometries of FOS results added to Table 6
4 0 1:1, 1.4:1, and 1.67:1 with reduced cohesion
E (1,500 psf) under seismic conditions within
discussion of Section 6 of the Report.
0 0 12A) Model result for bench slope geometries of Model runs added to Appendix D
U 1:1, 1.4:1, and 1.67:1 with reduced cohesion