REV07144 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l5. On Map No. 18, Postmining Topography, there are design ditch details for ditches Q, R and S, which correspond to ditches D-J8-2, D-J9-2 and D-J3 respectively. Not all of the Map No. 18 ditch details correspond with the hydrology design details found on pages Exh-8-166 and Exh-B- 167. Please revise accordingly. The Division has no further concems. Map 18 was appropriately revised in the April 4, 2007 submittal so that the listed ditch details correspond to the designs. Additionally, ditch designations and design locations were clari£ed. 16. On revised Map No. 22-J, please add a designation for the primary discharge pump on the plan view and remove, if appropriate, the reference to a "valved " dewatering pipe that appears on the embankment cross section. The Division has no further concerns. Map 22-J was revised in the May 8, 2007 submittal. 17. On revised Map No. 21-J, the Jlow depth in the concrete ditch is shown to be 0.2 feet. However, on revised page Exh-8-171, the Jlow depth is stated as being 0.3 feet. Please revise accordingly. The Division has no further concerns. Map No. 22-J was revised in the May 8, 2007 submittal and page Exh-8-171 was revised in the April 4, 2007 submittal so that the concrete ditch design parameters match. Section 2.05.3(51. Topsoil 18. Please describe how the proposed topsoil stockpile will be protected from livestock traffic. The Division has no further concerns as long as the livestock is kept off of the topsoil stockpile. Section 2.05.3(8). Coal Mine Waste And Non-Coal Processing Waste 19. Rule 2.05.3(8)(a)(ii)(D) requires that any geotechnical investigations, design, and construction requirements for the structure be included in the submittal. However, no geotechnical investigation was provided. The stability report is based on the transposition of material characteristics from tests at other areas. The report repeatedly states that site-specifrc testing, or at [east correlation or validation of assumptions, needs to be accomplished (Polume XI, page 11, geotechnical report executive summary and Section 1.1). Therefore, please accomplish site-specific geotechnical evaluations as recommended on page ll of Volume XI, and in the executive summary and Sections 1.1 and 6.2 of the Buckhorn Geatech stability evaluation. Please demonstrate that the assumptions of the evaluations are valid, or resubmit the analyses with revised information. The Division has no further concerns. In the submittal dated April 4, 2007, BRL provided the "Stability Evaluation of Proposed Coal Wastepile No. 3" by Buckhom Geotech, dated March 29, 4