Laserfiche WebLink
C-1980-004 PR-2 10-Feb-2011 <br />PAR — Engineering/Geotech Page 3 of 5 <br />2. In the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 2.05-26, the word "cited" is used where the <br />word "sited" or "situated" may be intended. Please review and revise as appropriate. <br />2.05.3(8) and 4.10 — Coal Mine Waste and Non-Coal Processing Waste <br />1. The first two paragraphs on page 2.05-30 indicate that, initially, topsoil and cover material <br />will be salvaged from about half of the proposed CMWP footprint. Please describe which <br />portion of the footprint will be developed first, and delineate that area on Figure 2.2-2. <br />2. The second paragraph on page 2.05-30 says that cover material will be salvaged to a depth of <br />6 to 8 feet. Please revise Section A-A' on Figure 2.2-2 to depict the proposed limits of cover <br />material salvage beneath the original ground surface. <br />3. Due to the size of the proposed CMWP, and the presence of the potential man-made fill <br />beneath, please provide an additional cross section of the pile (on Figure 2.2-2) that is <br />oriented approximately perpendicular to Section A-A'. <br />Appendix R — Stability Evaluation of Proposed Waste Pile by Buckhorn Geotech (Sep- <br />2010) <br />1. A similar stability evaluation (study) was conducted by Buckhorn in 2007, and was <br />incorporated into the permit (as Appendix R) with TR-16. TR-16 approved the development <br />of a smaller Coal Mine Waste Pile (CMWP) adjacent to McClave Canyon. For the 2007 <br />study, five boreholes were drilled within the footprint of the proposed CMWP; a sixth <br />borehole was drilled 650' to the southwest, and finished as a monitoring well. <br />2. It is not clear from the current PR-02 submittal whether Buckhorn's 2010 study is intended to <br />replace the 2007 version, or whether the new report is provided as a supplement. Some <br />portions of the earlier study have been reiterated in the current submittal, while others are <br />missing entirely. Please clarify the intent (to replace or to supplement the 2007 version) of <br />the 2010 report, and revise its contents accordingly. <br />3. Table of Contents <br />a) Exhibit A, as provided, is a CMWP plan, not Vicinity Map. Please revise the TOC <br />reference or add a vicinity map to the exhibits and rename the CMWP plan. <br />b) Appendix A — Laboratory Index Test Results — the results are not provided (but are <br />available in 2007 study). Please provide them here, or reference the 2007 study. <br />c) Appendixes C, C. 1, C.2, and C.3 are not provided. Please provide these sections of the <br />study for review and inclusion in the application. <br />d) Borehole #6 drill log and GW-9 data are provided with the report, but are not referenced <br />in the TOC. Please reference these two items. <br />4. Section 1.0 — Introduction <br />a) The locations of the six boreholes drilled for the 2007 study are not shown on the CMWP <br />map (Exhibit A). Please revise the map accordingly, and include a reference to the map <br />in this section of the study. <br />5. Section 2.0 — Site Description and Geologic Setting <br />