Laserfiche WebLink
No. 3", the Division suggests renumbering the accompanying Figures beginning at "10" <br />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 Shannon and Wilson study <br />(Addendum No. 3) to correlate with the existing Exh. 21, Item 1 Study, or eliminate <br />the "Addendum" tie to the previous Study. <br />30. The Division has noted certain discrepancies in the data presented in Table A-1 - Results <br />of Stability Analyses - Section A-A' as follows: The CMS Cohesion value for Trials 1 <br />and 2 is listed as 750 psf, when it should be 706 psf (per Page 2 of the text). This may be <br />a misprint in the table only; the correct value appears to have been used in the Slope/W <br />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 the Division was unable to determine whether correct values were used to <br />compute the Factors of Safety reported. Please review Table A-1 entries and revise as <br />appropriate. Please provide the Division with the corrected factors of safety, as <br />necessary. <br />31. The Division has noted certain discrepancies in the data presented in Table A-3 - Results <br />of 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. <br />Please review Table A-3 entries for CMS Cohesion and Factor of Safety and revise <br />as appropriate. <br />32. Note No. 1 on Figure 4 in the Shannon and Wilson report refers to Appendix B. The <br />report submitted to the Division included only Appendix A. Please provide Appendix B <br />for the Division's review. <br />33. On Figure 5, Curve No. 4, representing friction and cohesion for CO-3, has been <br />extrapolated to become Curve No. 6, the Lower Bound for stability analysis. The <br />Division questions whether an actual test result is appropriate for use as a "Lower <br />Bound", in that the number of samples analyzed is not excessive, and there may well be <br />other soils that are "worse" upon which the fill may be constructed. Please provide <br />additional rationale for the selection of the Lower Bound for the clay overburden. <br />General Comments <br />34. With the submittal of TR-81 Colowyo is proposing to increase both the capacity and <br />footprint of the South Taylor excess spoil fills. The proposed changes also include an <br />increase in the steepness of the outslopes of the East Taylor and West Taylor excess spoil