GENERAL31063 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n .`_ materials in order to make further evaluations of geochemical characteristics. It is imperative that the Division emphasize to the applicant that if further evaluations demonstrate that the Cresson Pit materials are not acceptable for underdrain construction, the operator would then be compelled to remove any underdrain already in place, and replace it with acceptable materials. The Division could accept underdrain fill from alluvial or colluvial borrow sources with minimal geochemical evaluation. Such materials would have to be shown to be durable and free- draining. The following stipulation should be placed on permit approval: ALL UNDERDRAIN FILL MATERIALS MUST BE DURABLE AND CHEMICALLY INERT, AND MUST MEET THE GRADATION DEFINED IN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. IF ANY UNDERDRAIN FILL MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ARE SHOWN TO BE ACID OR TOXIN GENERATORS BY THE ON-GOING OR FUTURE GEOCHEMICAL EVALUATIONS, SUCH MATERIALS MUST BE COMPLETELY REMOVED, PROPERLY DISPOSED OF, AND REPLACED WITH ACCEPTABLE FILL. Blast Vibration Monitoring I have reviewed the agreement between Citizens For Victor! (CFV) and the applicant, and have no problem with these additional blast vibration monitoring procedures being included in the Reclamation Permit. As an administrative matter, you can either incorporate the document into the permit by reference, or enumerate each item as a separate commitment or stipulation. The Division should not change the language in the CFV agreement, primarily because it would serve no useful purpose to do so, and because we were not involved in the process by which the agreement was reached, It should be noted that specification of a maximum peak particle velocity, such as 0.5 inches per second, while a common and usually effective practice, does not take into consideration the possibly more significant damage criterion related to the frequency component of the blasting vibration and the resonant frequency of the structure being excited. For this reason, I think CFV agreement number 6 is an excellent inclusion into the Reclamation Permit. Operating and Reclaimed Slope Configurations of Waste Dump and Ore Heap Fills In the most recent version of Volume I - Amendment 6, it remains unclear what slope configurations will be employed for the large fills at the site. It is also unclear what type of reclamation will be employed proposed slopes. There is mention within the pages of Volume I of slopes that will remain at the angle of repose, and slopes that will range from 2:1 to 2.5:1. There is mention of plating slopes with oxidized rock for purposes of reclamation, and of slope reduction "where revegetation is planned". The Division needs to have the vagaries regarding slope configuration and reclamation re-worked into a specific and enforceable format. Without specification, there will be no clear