REV103839 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dudash, Joe From: Walker, Byron Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:02 PM To: Dudash, Joe Cc: Hernandez, Dan; Brown, Sandy Subject: Review of Responses, TR-30, C-1996-083 Joe, these are my comments (see your inter-office memo request of February 13, 2004) to the Stover response of February 11, 2004. Item 1. I have reconsidered this item (as requested by the applicant) and withdraw my (our) request for additional information. Drainage does indeed report to Pond F as indicated on proposed Map No. 20, 02/04/04, and this short section of road may be considered as part of the disturbed area associated with the piles. Item 2. The stipulation needs to be part of the approval. Item 3. I concur in the response. Vertical drains have been added (Figure 2, Volume IX). The applicant presents an adequate and thorough demonstration that an alternate subdrainage system (size) ensures the applicable static safety factor, stability of the fill and protection of the surface and groundwater (pages 5 and 6, Volume IX, and Figure 2). I recommend the Division approve the alternate design [Rule 4.10.3(5)]. Item 4. I concur in the response. The applicant has fully complied with our request. Item 5. I concur in the response. The applicant has complied with our request. Item 6. I concur in the response. The applicant has complied with our request. Item 7. It is a technicality, but the proposed wording does not match Rule 4.10.2(1). Recommend the applicant be asked to revise proposed page 10, Inspection, as reads "The waste rock disposal area will be inspected for stability by a registered engineer, or --" to read "The waste rock disposal area will be inspected for stability by a qualified registered engineer, or Item 15. I concur in the response. Item 16. I concur in the response. Adequate changes were made to proposed pages of the PAP. All materials supplied are returned by hand carry this date. Please see me if you have any questions. Byron