2011-08-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088 (2)

Home Browse Search

Mike Boulay -12- August 19, 2011 to be consistent with road width and road base thicknesses as revised on Map 15. CAM - Please see revised page 2.05 -9. Additional Questions regarding Haul Road #2 51d. The last paragraph on page 2.04 -2 describes coke particulate matter (10,000 cy) that was buried in trenches. Haul Road #2 and the Rail Loop alignments both cross the coke fines area. Has any type of geotechnical investigation been done to ensure this is a suitable foundation for haul road and rail traffic? Is there a minimum thickness of embankment material that will be required to "bridge" across any unsuitable material? CAM - There has not been any type of geotechnical investigation to ensure a suitable foundation for haul road and rail traffic. CAM will perform necessary geotechnical work prior to construction. Division Response: Please incorporate any subsequent modifications into the PAP. CAM - Request noted. 51e - f. Items resolved. Additional Questions regarding the Rail Loop 51g - h. Items Resolved. Additional Questions regarding the Access Road 51i. No profile or typical section for the Access Road are shown on Map 15. Please add these details to Map 15. CAM - Please see revised Map -15. Text has been added to page 2.05 -14 to address road surfacing. Division Response: Typical section and profile were added to Map 15, as requested. Text was added to page 2.05 -14 to address surfacing of the access road, but this text (and the thickness shown on Map 15) are in conflict with text already provided on page 2.05 -15. That paragraph states that 6 to 12 inches of gravel will be used. Given the poor quality of native soils at the site, a 6- to 12- inch thickness is likely to be necessary for surfacing the Access Road. Please revise Map 15 accordingly and delete the contradictory information from page 2.05 -14.