My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-12-03_REPORT - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2015-12-03_REPORT - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2020 1:50:25 AM
Creation date
12/3/2015 4:17:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/3/2015
Doc Name
Final Report, QA Monitoring & Test Results
From
Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
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.
/
109
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
amec <br /> foster <br /> wheeler <br /> December 1, 2015 <br /> Mr. Timothy A. Cazier, PE <br /> Environmental Protection Specialist <br /> Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety <br /> 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br /> Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> RE: Cripple Creek&Victor Mining,Co.Cresson Project M-1980-244; <br /> Review Comments for Quality Assurance Monitoring & Test Results Final Report for Squaw <br /> Gulch VLF Phase 1(9,450 to 9,550 Bench) <br /> Dear Mr. Cazier, <br /> Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) has prepared <br /> this letter on behalf of Cripple Creek & Victor Mining Company (CC&V) in response to <br /> comments by the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS) in their letter <br /> dated November 23, 2015. Hard and electronic copies of the design and construction reports <br /> referenced in this response are submitted as part of this response. Revised portions of the <br /> Record of Construction (ROC) Report addressed in this letter are provided as an attachment, <br /> while the original report was previously submitted to DRMS. DRMS comments appear in italics <br /> followed by Amec Foster Wheeler's responses. <br /> Report Text: <br /> 1. Sect 2.1.1, Collapsed Workings: The presented discussion related to the thickness of the <br /> layers: coarse shaft backfill (CSB), 3-foot concrete plug (CP), minimum 7-foot cemented <br /> rockfill (CRF), and structural fill (SF) appear to result in a mound of CRF unless there is <br /> at least seven feet of soil everywhere above the soil/bedrock interface. Please confirm <br /> the soil/bedrock interface was at least seven feel below finished grade everywhere or <br /> clarify the narrative. <br /> Response: <br /> Amec Foster Wheeler has made reference to Figure UG1 (in section M.1) for <br /> clarification. <br /> 2. Sect 6.3.2, Seaminq Observations: The Division requests clarification on adequate <br /> overlap for geomembrane seams. Technical specification 2776.0 does not specify a <br /> minimum overlap for the purpose of seaming. Appendix J consistently lists six inches of <br /> overlap. Please clarify what dictates adequate overlap for the purpose of seaming. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.