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 5 <br /> <br />specific selection of MAXIM's geotechnical recommendations. <br />J. E. Stover and Associates' decision to selectively implement <br />MAXIM's recommendations makes it impossible for the Division to <br />find the Bowie No. 2 permit application adequate. In judging the <br />adequacy of the proposed mine plan, the Division has relied upon the <br />analyses prepared by MAXIM and submitted by J. E. Stover and <br />Associates on behalf of BRL. The Division has specifically stated its <br />reliance upon MAXIM's ,recommendations within each of it's adequacy <br />memoranda. Since MAXIM's geotechnical conclusions rely upon <br />adherence to MAXIM's recommendations, non-adherence to these <br />recommendations renders MAXIM's conclusions unreliable. If MAXIM's <br />conclusions cannot be relied upon by the Division, than BRL has not <br />demonstrated the adequacy of its proposed mine plan. The Division <br />cannot approve an inadequate mine plan. ERGO, without BRL's <br />commitment to all of MAXIM's geotechnical recommendations, the <br />Division cannot approve the Bowie No. 2 permit application, unless <br />acceptable alternative geotechnical demonstrations are provided <br />which do not rely upon the selectively disavowed recommendations. <br />Furthermore, if BRL clarifies it's commitment to implement all of MAXIM's <br />geotechnical recommendations, the Division will need to require additional <br />procedural commitment from BRL. The Division attempts to be realistic about <br />the complexity of mine site construction situations. MAXIM, in completing its <br />reports, has presented recommendations for mitigative techniques and methods, <br />including examples. The Division's experience has lead it to realize that it is <br />not practical to specify mitigative techniques for every design situation prior <br />to construction. The regulations reflect this in instances where "as-built" <br />submittals are allowed. In the situation at hand, the Division is satisfied that <br />MAXIM's reports, if all of MAXIM's recommendations are implemented, have <br />demonstrated that the proposed Bowie No. 2 mine plan can be constructed in <br />compliance with the regulations. However, MAXIM's recommendations imply the <br />possibility that a significant number of field redesign situations and mitigative <br />application decisions will occur during the construction effort. In order for the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.