Laserfiche WebLink
Kathy Welt <br />March 19, 2010 <br />Page 5 <br />Please revise Section 2.0 and the pertinent tables and figures in Volume IOC to reflect the <br />modification made to the refuse material friction angle. <br />Response: Requested revisions have been made to Exhibit 82 of the TR-120 application. <br />18. DRMS 24-Feb: Figures 2-3 and 2-4 depict a similar approach, in which undrained shear <br />strength values are correlated with SPT blow counts. I was unable to obtain a copy of the <br />referenced article by Hara and Niwa. In light of the issues raised in the preceding question, <br />please review and confirm or correct the methodology used to determine the undrained shear <br />strength values depicted in Figures 2-3 and 2-4. <br />DRMS 10-Mar: MCC's 9 March response provided supplemental reference material <br />on the conversion of LAP SPT blow counts to cohesion (undrained shear strength). In <br />addition, all inferred undrained shear strength values higher than 6,000 psf were <br />removed from consideration. This change resulted in only a modest decrease to the <br />undrained shear strength used for modeling the undrained stability of the RPE East. <br />Item resolved, no additional response is necessary. <br />Response: No response required. <br />19. Inspection of fill during construction is required by 4.09.1(11) and 4.10.2. I was unable to <br />locate, in the TR-120 application, a description of field inspection activities and reporting <br />that are proposed for the RPE East. Please incorporate inspection and reporting details into <br />Volume IOC that comply with the requirements of the sections listed above, or reference <br />another place in the Permit where the information may be found. <br />Response: A construction inspection and reporting plan has been added as a new Section <br />4.8 in Exhibit 82 of the TR-120 application. <br />20. A minimum static safety factor of 1.5 is required by 4.10.4(2). The "Permit Design" <br />configuration modeled in Figures 2-9 and 2-10 of the original application resulted in a static <br />Factor of Safety of 1.82 and a seismic Factor of Safety of 1.58. These factors may be <br />reduced slightly by the change in friction angle for the refuse material, but are still likely to <br />exceed the requisite values. Please revise the Permit Design model runs of Figures 2-9 and <br />2-10 to reflect the change in refuse friction angle derived from the LRP investigation. <br />Response: Additional model runs were completed and figures added, as requested. <br />General Review Comments <br />21. 2.1 - Geotechnical Investigation describes the soil and rock borings drilled for the borehole <br />locations for the RPE East investigation are shown on Drawing No. C-02 in Appendix D. For <br />ease of reference, it would be helpful if the same (or a similar) drawing were also included as <br />Figure 1-3. Please add Figure 1-3 to Volume 10C, illustrating the borehole locations for <br />the RPE East geotechnical investigation. <br />Response: This figure has been added to show the LRP borehole locations. <br />PAMpls\06 CO\26\06261003 MCC Refuse Pile Site Review & Permit\WorkFiles\Permit Application\Response to Comments\2010-02-10\Response <br />Submittal Documents\2010-03-19 Barr Response Letter.doc