1990-01-19_REVISION - M1988112 ‎(7)‎

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/19/1990
• Doc Name: FAX COVER
• From: STEFFEN ROBERTSON & KIRSTEN
• To: STEVE RENNER
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

$ 303 985 9447 SRK DENVER 05
96 01118 18:06
• •
BATTLE MOUNTATN RESOURCES, INC.
ADEgUACY RESPONSES - ADDTTIONAL INFORMATION
PAGE 3 Of 7
10. Please provide a discussion of the qA/qC program to 6e followed at the San
Luis Project as well as a comn+itment to fol]owing the QA/QC program. 7n
addition, all QA/QC test data must be submitted to the Division upon
completion for approval of the composite liner construction. BMR must be
aware that the Division will require that areas that do not meat the
require speciffcations as demonstrated 6y the QA/QC testing may be subject
to replacement and retesting.
Attachment 1 to this submittal discusses the QA/QC program for the San '
Pro,)ect.
11. In order to ensure that 8MR is aware of all the monitoring requlremen.,
for this project, the Dlvisian requests that a detailed monitoring report
be prepared outlining all monitoring to 6e performed, the frequencies ar,'
reporting requirements. 7h1s report should include not only surface and
ground water monitoring, but also any other monitoring such as taiifngs
monitoring and pit water inflow monitoring.
A comprehensive monitoring report is being prepared for submittal. This
report includes a complete discussion of all monitoring required during
operation and reclamation of the San Luis Project. Monitoring during
construction is discussed in the QA/QC program included as Attachment 1.
12. Comments on ]0 and I1 8150 apply to this questlan.
No response necessary.
13. The comment was satlsfactoriiy addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
14. The comment was satlsfactoriiy addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
15. The comment was satisfactorily addressed In the January 9, 1990 ,submittal.
lb. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 7990 submittal.
17. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
1B. The comment was satlsfactoriiy addressed In the January 9, 1990 submittal.
19. Please provide a discussion of the riprap method chosen and why this method
was chosen.
The criteria for the selection of riprap size is the Murray and Smith
method presented in the Urban Storm DRainage Criteria Manual (section
5.4.2). The riprap diameter d50 is given 6y the equation
d50 ~ (vSD.l7!(SG_1~0.68 X 4.5]z