My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10161
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10161
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:26:35 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:08:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/14/1997
Doc Name
ADDITIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES PROPOSED PORTAL RD CUTS & TOPSOIL PILE BOWIE NO2 MINE BOWIE DELTA CNTY
From
DMG
To
DAVE BERRY
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Memo to Dave Berry <br />Bowie No. 2 Second Additional Geotech Study <br />page 2 <br />A regulatory misunderstanding on the part of MAXIM, reportedly based upon our <br />meeting of December 5, 1996, is stated within the first paragraph on page 3 of <br />the report. That paragraph states; <br />"During the December 5, 1996 meeting it was indicated to us that the <br />portal road would remain in use and not be reclaimed after mining <br />operations were complete. It was agreed that if the cut slopes remained <br />stable over the life of the project (estimated at 20 to 30 years) then they <br />would most likely remain stable after the mining operation was <br />completed. For this reason, we concluded that the post-construction <br />stability of both the road cuts and the topsoil pile area was most critical <br />and therefor atotal-stress analysis was conducted..." <br />In order to avoid any continued misunderstanding, Iwill clarify the Division's <br />opinion in this regard. I do not recall, nor do my notes record, the specific <br />discussion referenced above. This does not mean it did not occur. However, in <br />no case would a formal "agreement" have issued from the discussion on <br />December 5, 1996. The purpose of our meeting was to exchange thoughts <br />regarding the situation, in order to facilitate a resolution of the outstanding <br />geotechnical inadequacies within the permit application. As this memo will <br />demonstrate, I am confident that the meeting accomplished that general goal. <br />The requirements of the road regulations, contained within Rule 4.03, are <br />straightforward. Cut slopes adjoining both Haul roads (Rule 4.03.1) and Access <br />roads (Rule 4.03.2) are limited to being no steeper than 1.5h:1v in <br />unconsolidated materials, and no steeper than 1 h:0.25v in competent bedrock, <br />unless an appropriate geotechnical analysis demonstrates to the Division's <br />satisfaction that steeper cut slopes will be stable and will have no deleterious <br />environmental or health and safety risks. In the case of slopes steeper than the <br />stated maximum slope gradients, the applicant must demonstrate that a <br />minimum static slope safety factor of 1.5 will be achieved, unless an <br />appropriate geotechnical analysis demonstrates to the Division's satisfaction <br />that steeper cut slopes will be stable and will have no deleterious <br />environmental or health and safety risks. Under the more general requirements <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.