Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Tony Waldron <br />Bowie No. 2 Geotechnical Adequacy <br />page 8 <br />mile of a blast required lower on the permit area. BRL might consider notifying <br />additional residents and owners in order to avoid this possible delay. <br />2.05.3(7) Coal Handling Structures <br />Comments included above under section 2.05.3(2) pertain to the potential <br />exposure of the proposed coal handling structures to impacts from the <br />geological hazards identified on the permit area. <br />2.05.3(8) Coal Mine Waste and Non-Coal Processing Waste <br />Comments included above under section 2.05.3(2) pertain to the potential <br />exposure of the proposed coal mine waste and non-coal processing waste <br />facilities to impacts from the geological hazards identified on the permit area. <br />Volume IV - "Coal Mine Waste Bank Final Design for <br />the Bowie No. 2 Mine" <br />2.1 Surface Conditions <br />WESTEC observes that no surficial springs or signs of ephemeral streams were <br />noted within the footprint of the proposed waste pile in September of 1995. <br />Because September is near the annual ground water low stand, BRL should <br />reexamine the footprint of the proposed pile at the normal wet period of the <br />year, during May or June. <br />4.1.4 Runoff Control Ditches <br />WESTEC: states; "The 35-inch maximum riprap size recommended for these side <br />ditches is large, compared to ditch size and flow depth. This requirement <br />provides for the stability of the material under loads transferred by flowing <br />water and for mass stability of the riprap itself. It is found that placing riprap <br />this size is not practical, it is suggested that the D50 material size, 24 inches, <br />be placed and secured using grout." <br />