Laserfiche WebLink
C-1981-019 TR-81 <br />PAR - mlt <br />16 Feb 2009 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />values from Boring CO-3 appear to have been used in the S& W study submitted with <br />TR-81.) <br />2. The overall footprint of the Excess Spoil fill areas does not appear to have been revised <br />between the July 2006 Study and the first two Addenda. Significant changes are <br />proposed, however, with Addendum No. 3, dated October 21, 2009. The spoil <br />configuration has been revised, and outslopes have been steepened, to allow sizable <br />temporary spoil fills to be placed over the permanent spoil fills. Additional laboratory <br />testing has been performed on spoil and clay soil overburden, and on the Carbonaceous <br />Mudstone (CMS) layer exposed on the floor of the pit. New Figures 1 thru 6 are <br />presented, along with a new Appendix A. <br />There is potential for future confusion with respect to the new "Addendum". Addendum <br />No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 consisted of minor modifications to the original S&W Study, <br />and updated specific Figures or Tables while maintaining the original order. Addendum <br />No. 3 includes a new set of Figures (1 thru 6) that do not correlate with Figures 1 thru 9 <br />of the July 2006 Study. A new "Appendix A" has been provided, which does not appear <br />to be designed to replace the current Appendix A. If you wish to name the October 2009 <br />study "Addendum No. 3", we suggest renumbering the accompanying Figures beginning <br />at "10" and changing the Appendix from "A" to "D". Alternatively, it may be simpler to <br />eliminate the "Addendum" reference and give the current study its own title. <br />Please revise the contents of the October 2009 S& W study to correlate with the existing <br />Exh. 21, Item I Study, or eliminate the "Addendum" tie to the previous Study. <br />We have noted certain discrepancies in the data presented in Table A-1 - Results of <br />Stability Analyses - Section A-A' as follows: <br />The CMS Cohesion value for Trials 1 and 2 is listed as 750 psf, when it should be 706 psf <br />(per Page 2 of the text). This may be a misprint in the table only; the correct value <br />appears to have been used in the Slope/W software (pp 22 and 23). <br />CMS Friction Angle and Cohesion values for Trials 5 thru 8 should be 17 and 706 (Mean <br />Parameters) rather than 14 and 288. Slope/W printouts have not been provided for these <br />Trials, so we are unable to determine whether correct values were used to compute the <br />Factors of Safety reported. <br />Please review Table A-1 entries and revise as appropriate. <br />4. We have noted certain discrepancies in the data presented in Table A-3 - Results of <br />Stability Analyses - Section C-C'. The CMS Cohesion value for Trials 1, 2, 5 and 6 is <br />listed as 750 psf rather than 706 psf. This may be a misprint in the table only; the correct <br />value appears to have been used in the Slope/W software for Trials 1 and 2 (pp 26-27), <br />but Slope/W printouts have not been provided for Trials 5 and 6, so we are unable to <br />determine whether correct values were used to compute the Factors of Safety reported.