My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-01-04_REVISION - C1996083
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2013-01-04_REVISION - C1996083
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:11:49 PM
Creation date
1/7/2013 9:24:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/4/2013
Doc Name
Review of BRL Adequacy Response (Interoffice Memorandum)
From
Marcia Talvitie
To
Susan Burgmaier
Type & Sequence
TR76
Email Name
MLT
SLB
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
<br />INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br /> <br /> <br />Date: <br /> 04 January 2013 <br /> <br />To: <br /> Susan L. Burgmaier, Lead Specialist <br />From: <br /> Marcia L. Talvitie, P.E. <br /> <br />Subject: <br /> Bowie No. 2 Mine – Permit No. C-1996-083 <br /> TR-76 – Expansion of Coal Mine Waste Pile No. 2 <br /> Review of BRL Adequacy Response – Engineering/Geotechnical <br /> <br />I have reviewed BRL’s recent package, submitted by J.E. Stover & Associates in response to the <br />Division’s December 2012 preliminary adequacy review. Each of my comments has been <br />satisfactorily addressed, as detailed below. <br /> <br />17. There appears to be an inconsistency regarding the steepness of the hillside cut slope that <br />is proposed for a portion of the expansion area. The third paragraph on Page 1indicates <br />that a segment of the hillside will be graded back (steepened) to a slope of 1.5H:1V. On <br />Figure 1, Section F-F’ shows a cut slope of 2.0H:1V through this area. Section F-F’ in <br />the Buckhorn report also depicts 2.0H:1V. Please clarify the intended slope ratio to be <br />cut at this location. <br /> <br />BRL clarified that the differences in the cut slope steepness represent two different <br /> <br />locations. Item resolved. <br /> <br />2. Subdrainage systems for Valley Fill disposal sites are required by Rule 4.09.2(2)(d). An <br />alternative subdrainage system was previously approved by the Division, as allowed by <br />4.10.3(5). Volume IX page 5 of the current application indicates that the subdrain for <br />CMWDA No. 2 will be extended as shown on Figure 2. While there is nothing to <br />prohibit extension of the subdrain, the proposed expansion of the waste pile in this area <br />does not appear to be a valley fill configuration. The Division suggests that construction <br />of a drain to intercept any groundwater seeps identified would be sufficient. <br /> <br />BRL added a note to Figure 2 and Maps 20 and 21-3 which states that the underdrain <br /> <br />will be extended only if seeps are encountered. Item resolved. <br /> <br /> <br />cc: Sandy Brown <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.