My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-21_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010088
>
2011-06-21_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:43 PM
Creation date
6/22/2011 9:31:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010088
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
6/21/2011
Doc Name
Adequacy Review No. 2
From
DRMS
To
CAM Colordo, LLC
Email Name
MPB
SB1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Corey Heaps <br />CAM Colorado LLC <br />June 21, 2011 Page 34 <br />Additional Questions regarding Haul Road #1 <br />51 a. Typical Section on Map 15 - How will thickness of Pit Run be determined? Is there a <br />minimum thickness? No discussion is provided. <br />51b. Page 2.05 -13, Haul Road Surfacing, says haul roads will be plated with 10 to 20 inches <br />of gravel surfacing. Please make this description consistent with what is shown on <br />typical sections on Map 15 (including thicknesses of pit run and 1 -112" road base). <br />51c. Page 2.05 -13, Haul Road Maintenance, mentions road shoulders (none are currently <br />proposed, but possibly should be) and paved surface (none proposed). Please review <br />this paragraph to ensure it accurately describes what is proposed. <br />Additional Questions regarding Haul Road #2 <br />51d. The last paragraph on page 2.04 -2 describes coke particulate matter (10,000 cy) that <br />was buried in trenches. Haul Road #2 and the Rail Loop alignments both cross the <br />coke fines area. Has any type of geotechnical investigation been done to ensure this is <br />a suitable foundation for haul road and rail traffic? Is there a minimum thickness of <br />embankment material that will be required to "bridge" across any unsuitable <br />material? <br />51e. The Haul Road #2 Profile is shown on Map 15. Are the buried coke fines close <br />enough to the surface that excavation and replacement with suitable embankment <br />material will be required? <br />51L Page 2.05 -9 describes what will be done with unsuitable materials encountered in <br />construction of the Rail Loop. Please use similar language to address the handling of <br />unsuitable materials encountered in construction of Haul Road #2. <br />Additional Questions regarding the Rail Loop <br />51g. On page 2.05 -9, Design and Construction (Rail Loop), in the third paragraph, please <br />revise "pond 6" to read, "Evaporation Pond No. 6 ", consistent with the map <br />nomenclature. <br />51h. On page 2.05 -9, please elaborate on the source of "clean" dirt (there may also be a <br />better term to use). <br />Additional Questions regarding the Access Road <br />51i. No profile or typical section for the Access Road are shown on Map 15. Please add <br />these details to Map 15. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.