Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to Dave Berry <br />Bowie No. 2 Third Supplemental Response <br />page 5 <br /> <br />deteriorate to approximately 75% relative density. The performance of the saturated fill <br />will be governed by the material shear strength corresponding to that density. For this <br />reason I find the response provided by BRL to date to be insufficient to resolve my <br />geotechnical concern regarding the potential instability of backfilled slopes comprised of <br />these moisture sensitive soils. <br />(b) "Maxim does have considerable experience working with expansive soils. Their <br />conclusion that they do not believe expansion of the reclaimed slope fill to be a <br />concern for the long term stability of the slopes is supported by experience. For <br />the DMG to refer to Maxim's conclusion as 'totally unsupported" is inappropriate <br />at best." <br />Mr. Stover has chosen to take umbrage with my use of the term "totally unsupported <br />conclusion". In this instance I stand by my observation. Within the report referenced, the <br />author (MAXIM) provides no specific discussion to support its conclusion, which in my <br />opinion continues to be in direct contradiction to its earlier observations. My recent <br />exchanges with MAXIM's professional staff has led me,as Mr. Stover, to be generally <br />impressed by their understanding of expansive soils. Like Mr. Stover and the <br />professionals at MAXIM, I have also had considerable experience with the performance <br />of swelling soils. My statement, was intended to be taken literally. Within the MAXIM <br />reports submitted by J.E. Stover & Associates, which constitute the majority of the <br />geotechnical support for BRL's proposed mine and reclamation plans, there is no data <br />or discussion to support their specific geotechnical conclusion. The Division is required <br />to complete a finding regarding the adequacy of the application, based upon its <br />content, to demonstrate that the performance of the mine will meet the <br />requirements of our regulations. <br />Until this signficant geotechnical presentation inadequacy is solved, I cannot find the <br />geotechnical demonstration supporting the proposed mining and reclamation plans to be <br />adequate and cannot recommend its acceptance to the Division. <br />°Geotechnical Laboratory Testing, Proposed Gob Pile" (Memo #2) <br />In my adequacy memorandum of January 14, 1997, I observed; "As originally stated in <br />my adequacy comments, my experience leads me to question the accuracy of <br />observations based on blow counts. I further believe that the triaxial shear <br />determinations performed on the Mancos Shale in MAXIM's laboratory appear to have <br />been appropriately conducted. I fail to see what a literature search will provide to <br />improve upon the site specific sampling and laboratory analysis. Laboratory analyses are <br />normally performed to provide site specific strength determinations, which will be <br />