Laserfiche WebLink
Stark, Jim <br />From: Talvitie, Marcia <br />Sent: 08 April, 2010 08:55 <br />To: Stark, Jim <br />Cc: Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: RE: Colowyo PR-03 Completeness <br />Jim, my comments are inserted below, for your use. <br />Marcia <br />From: Stark, Jim <br />Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:25 AM <br />To: Talvitie, Marcia <br />Cc: Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: Colowyo PR-03 Completeness <br />Marcia, <br />I have reviewed the Colowyo PR-03 Incompleteness responses and I have the following comments with regards to the <br />questions I asked you to review (questions 11, 12 and 14) <br />Question 11-This question deals with the four proposed haul roads in Collom (three to the temporary overburden <br />stockpile and 1 to the loadout). Colowyo provided Map 25D, which shows the haul road profiles to the stockpile but <br />NOT the loadout. They are calling the haul road to the loadout an access road (the Collom access road, shown on Map <br />25E, sheets 1-9). By definition, since they will be hauling coal on the "Collom access road", it is a haul road and must be <br />designed and constructed to haul road standards. Colowyo also minimally addressed the three haul roads to the <br />stockpile in the permit text (Rule 4.03.1). 1 will still be calling this incomplete because they need the haul road to the <br />loadout designated and constructed as such. What I would like you to look at is whether they are on the right track with <br />the three haul roads to the stockpile and how close they are to the road to the loadout actually being a haul road. <br />MILT: Map 25D adequately portrays the three Haul Roads coming out of the pit area. The "Collom Access Road," as <br />detailed in the Map 25E series, has been designed to meet the haul road requirements of section 4.03.1. The details are <br />very thorough, and show a wide gravel road paralleled by a narrower paved road. I wonder if the best thing would be for <br />them to rename it as a "Haul/Access Road", since the two halves of the alignment fulfill the two functions. I see no <br />obstacles to completeness in the technical aspects of the design. <br />Question 12 -This question deals with the proposed access road to the sediment pond. There is no text in Rule 4.03.2 <br />describing this road so I will also be calling this item incomplete (they are calling this a light-use road, which is incorrect - <br />we had this discussion during PR-02, as well). They did, however, provide Exhibit 25, Item 1, which has the design and <br />construction details for this road. I would like you to review this exhibit for completeness. <br />MLT: Exhibit 25 Item 1 does indicate that the Sediment Pond road is an "Access Road" and that it has been designed <br />accordingly. I see no obstacles to completeness in this Exhibit. As you know, the text of Rule 4.03.2 needs to be <br />updated to include this road as an "Access Road". <br />Question 14 -This question deals with the 250,000,000 CY temporary overburden stockpile. Colowyo has provided a <br />design map (Map 29C) and an engineering report (Exhibit 23, Item 1) for this pile. They have also minimally addressed <br />the pile in the text. My thought is they have provided the necessary materials to do an adequacy review but I would like <br />you to look at the map and exhibit to see if they have included everything you need.