Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />No. 7 application. As stated on page 60 of the "Project Description <br />and depicted on Drawing #3 of Appendix 6 within Volume IV of the <br />Amendment No. 8 application, ".,.the maximum height on Drawing <br />(detail) C-4 is slightly lower. than previous approvals to allow use of <br />the top of the AGOSA for a soi`~ Stockpile." GAI reevaluated the <br />structural stability and surface water management for the AGOSA and <br />the results are presented within Appendix 6 in Volume IV of the <br />Amendment No. B application. <br />GAI completed static and pseudo-static slope stability evaluations of <br />the amended AGOSA, as approved. Four critical facial cross sections <br />were chosen for structural analysis of the AGOSA. For the pseudo- <br />static analyses, the 0.8g peak ground acceleration (PGA) seismic <br />coefficient was used, as approved by the Division for Amendment No. 7. <br />The 0.8g PGA was accepted by the Division for application to "non- <br />hazardous" facilities, which includes the SGOSA and AGOSA. The slope <br />stability conclusions for the four critical facial cross sections are <br />summarized on Drawing #3 of Appendix 6. As stated on this drawing, <br />the minimum static Factor of Safety (FOS) for the reclaimed slopes <br />exceeds 1.4 and the minimum pseudo-static FOS exceeds 1.2. The GAI <br />analyses of the AGOSA, as presented in Appendix 6 to the Amendment No. <br />8 application, are viewed as consistent with previously approved <br />structural evaluations and designs by the Division. In my opinion GAI <br />has complied with normally accepted standards of structural design and <br />stability evaluation. Further these design and evaluation conclusions <br />are faithfully summarized by CC&VG within Section 5.7.2.3 "Stability" <br />on page 61 of the "Project Description" within Volume I of the <br />Amendment No. 8 application. <br />cc: Bruce Humphries <br />Jim Stevens <br />Jim Dillie <br />Harry Posey <br />