My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-01-28_PERMIT FILE - M2009082
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009082
>
2010-01-28_PERMIT FILE - M2009082
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:59:03 PM
Creation date
1/29/2010 8:14:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009082
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
1/28/2010
Doc Name
Review of Stability Analysis Report
From
DRMS-psh
To
DRMS-jle
Email Name
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo to Jared Ebert 3 January 8, 2010 <br />Slope Stability Review File No. M-2009-082 <br />Phase 4B <br />The applicant's analysis was duplicated for verification; no potential failure surfaces with lower safety <br />factors than the applicant's identified critical slip circle were located. The safety factor produced by <br />Galena is higher than that produced by Slopeft this is due to slight programming differences in the <br />software packages and is not significant. Therefore, the accuracy of the applicant's analysis is confirmed <br />(see attached). <br />Phase 4C <br />9. Please explain the difference in piezometric surface elevation between the stability analysis for <br />PA04-BH011 used for Phase 4A and 4C. <br />The applicant's analysis was duplicated for verification; no potential failure surfaces with lower safety <br />factors than the applicant's identified critical slip circle were located. The safety factor produced by <br />Galena is higher than that produced by Slope/W; this is due to slight programming differences in the <br />software packages and is not significant. Therefore, the accuracy of the applicant's analysis is confirmed <br />(see attached). <br />Phase 5A <br />The applicant's analysis was duplicated for verification; no potential failure surfaces with lower safety <br />factors than the applicant's identified critical slip circle were located. The safety factor produced by <br />Galena is higher than that produced by Slopeft this is due to slight programming differences in the <br />software packages and is not significant. Therefore, the accuracy of the applicant's analysis is confirmed <br />(see attached). <br />Phase 5B and 5C <br />The applicant's analysis was duplicated for verification; no potential failure surfaces with lower safety <br />factors than the applicant's identified critical slip circle were located. The safety factor produced by <br />Galena is higher than that produced by Slope/W; this is due to slight programming differences in the <br />software packages and is not significant. Therefore, the accuracy of the applicant's analysis is confirmed <br />(see attached). <br />Longterm <br />The applicant's analysis was duplicated for verification; a failure surface with lower safety factor than the <br />applicant's identified critical slip circle was located, however the safety factor was above 1.00 and <br />therefore acceptable to the Division. The accuracy of the applicant's analysis is confirmed (see attached). <br />Conclusion <br />The Division agrees with the proposed setbacks from the mining highwall at the Parsons Mine.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.