REV93429 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

However, we also need to look at their existing and permitted sediment levels to determine the necessity for sediment removal even at the time of reclamation. RP-1 currently serves a refuse area that was originally reclaimed in 1992. It has much less than one foot of sediment in the bottom. Calculations based on 1-foot of existing sediment show that this pond has an estimated 188 years of capacity left before the sediment level reaches 2' below the top of the riser. Discharge standazds are easily met at this stage. Pond 2/3 currently has a sediment level cleanout threshold at 3.1' below the riser during the active state of the refuse pile. At this stage the pond has over 11 years of sediment storage left before the sediment level reaches 2' below the top of the riser. Again, the discharge standards aze easily met at this stage. Interestingly, this pond has only accumulated about 10% of the predicted 3-year sediment load over the past 4 years since cleanout demonstrating how conservative the model is. Pond Sa currently has a sediment level cleanout threshold of 1.65' below the spillway. Some of the sediment, if at this level, would need to be cleaned out to maintain adequate storage. Reducing the sediment storage volume down to 2.8' below the spillway would require the removal of 4,277 CY of material and result in adequate storage for over 10 years of predicted sediment and still retain over 2' of volume below the spillway. Any necessary cleanout should be performed at the time of reclamation to allow the incorporation of sediment removed into the adjacent reclamation. Scrapers could easily perform this task with minimal haul to the toe of the refuse areas. Due to the oversizing of the ponds no cleanouts after the time of reclamation would be necessary as described. If you would like SedCAD runs demonstrating some of these values please call Scott Wanstedt. Since many iterations of runs are involved and volumes of reports would result we are not enclosing them here. However, the models are set up such that they can be easily modified to model DMG's desired scenarios. Such gross comments as "does not reflect worst case conditions..." without stating what DMG would consider "worst case" does not provide us with the information needed to rerun the model. We would be glad to address reasonable comments on this matter. 14. Task 115 Comments are noted. 15. Mobilization/Demobilization times Mr. Bill Willis of WC Striegel, Inc. in Rangely (970-675-8444) was contacted to provide first hand input of realistic times to load and unload D-9s and 637s as well as average travel speeds from Rangely to Grand Junction. WC Striegel is an earthwork contractor with an extensive assortment of heavy equipment including D-9s and 637s. He stated January 15, 2003 I 1 Permi[ Revision #4 Comments Blue Mountain Energy, Inc.