APPCOR12906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-zz- XVI. Explosives - Rules 2.05.3(6) and 4.08 The following concerns Caere identified in the review, but have been satisfactorily resolved: The proposed blasting plan did not include definitive statements on the existence of any residence within one-half mile of the planned blasting area, how a pre- blast survey eaould be conducted if necessary, conformance with blasting schedule publication requirements and various other sections of Rule 4.08. The applicant responded that no such residences exist and supplied a statement of intended compliance with all requirements. The operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XVII. BackfillinQ and Grading - Rules 2.05.3(6)(b), 2.05.4(2)(a), 2.05.4(2)(c), 4.09. 4.13 and 4.14 The backfilling and grading plans were reviewed by the Division for conformance. Appropriate information can be found in Sections 2.05.3 and 2.05.4 of Volume I of the application. Problems identified during the review were related to over- burden handling procedures, swell factors, stability of the excess spoil pile and the configuration of the proposed reclaimed surface. All concerns were satisfactorily resolved. Tlce Division required that the applicant perform a stability analysis for the excess spoil pile to ensure that a minimum long-term stability factor of 1.5 had been achieved. The applicant responded with a stability analysis based on certain assumptions about the nature of the material characteristics of the structure. The assumption about the nature of the material was conservative and approached a "caorst case" situation. However, the contention of the operator that "no phreatic surface is to be found within" the spoil pile caas not adequately proven by the applicant. The Division requested additional information and justification of the phreatic surface assumptions of the analysis. This request caas satisfied by the applicant. The structure is, therefore, in compliance. Follocaing issuance of the permit, the applicant is required to supply the Division with inspection reports for the structure pursuant to Rule 4.09.1(11). Also, further construction of the pile will be in conformance with criteria outlined in Rule 4.09. The original post-mining reclamation map submitted by the applicant appeared to conform with the requirements of approximate original contour (AOC). Sub- sequently, a revised map caas submitted which indicated an intent to construct an incised stream channel and a distinctly different configuration from AOC. The applicant was requested to submit a map of the final reclaimed surface which would demonstrate conformance with AOC and which would prove the final surface to be geomorphically stable. The response to this request was inadequate. Another map was prepared and submitted to the Division. The latest submittal (Exhibit D) demonstrates intended conformance with the requirements of approximate original contour. The operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section.