APPCOR10687 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Dave Berry Bowie No. 2 Third Supplemental Response page 2 presented recommendations for mitigative techniques and methods, including examples. The Division's experience has lead it to realize that it is not practical to specify mitigative techniques for every design situation prior to construction. The regulations reflect this in instances where "as-built" submittals are allowed. In the situation at hand, the Division is satisfied that MAXIM's reports, if all of MAXIM's recommendations are implemented, have demonstrated that the proposed Bowie No. 2 mine plan can be constructed in compliance with the regulations. However, MAXIM's recommendations imply the possibility that a significant number of field redesign situations and mitigative application decisions will occur during the construction effort. In order for the Division to participate in these decisions in a timely fashion, without introducing onerous review requirements and attendant delays, it will be necessary for BRL to communicate these situations on a day-to-day basis. To address this concern, I propose that BRL's qualified geotechnical observers be required to be in attendance whenever construction is occurring and to maintain thorough daily construction log sheets. The qualifications of BRL's qualified geotechnical observers shall be submitted to the Division prior to their commencing observations. In addition, BRL's qualified geotechnical observers shall complete log sheets within 24 hours and deliver them by facsimile to the Division weekly. Further, any cut slope, fill embankment, or drainage facility design modification or mitigative implementation shall be communicated to the Division by telephone or facsimile prior to its implementation. Finally, at the conclusion of construction, BRL shall submit a summary geotechnical construction report to the Division, summarizing the geotechnical problems encountered, and the mitigative methods implemented during the construction." Mr. Stover's January 21, 1997, response complied with all of my above requests, except one. Mr. Stover commited BRL to having a "representative" on site, rather than a "qualified geotechnical observer". This would not have satisfied my concern. During the telephone exchanges of January 28, 1997, both Bili Bear, Jr and Jim Stover indicated that BRL would comply with the Division's request and have a "qualified geotechnical observer' on site during geotechnically sensitive construction operations. Assuming, BRL provides written verification of this commitment, this will satisfy the concern expressed in my January 14th memorandum. (3) Outstanding Unresolved Geotechnical Concerns In my memorandum of January 14th, I also mentioned several of my earlier geotechnical concerns which I believe remain unresolved. In my opinion these remaining items are not conditionable and will continue to prevent the approval of the permit. Mr. Stover responded to each of these concerns, as follows.