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
Continued... <br /> Response: <br /> All of the above noted figures have been revised to read "Structural Fill <br /> used in remediation effort". This was a reference used in the field as to its <br /> location, however it is the same material. There is no deviation from the <br /> Technical Specifications. All figures in this section have been included in <br /> the addendum. <br /> ii. Note 3 on Figure UG27 states "25 CY of approved 4020 mix concrete and <br /> 45 CY of 300 psi mix concrete was placed as substitution for cemented <br /> rockfill." This is not discussed in Section 7.2, Project Technical <br /> Specification Deviations of the report. There is no mention of 4020 mix in <br /> Appendix M.3. The "300 psi" mix is presumably flowable fill (spec no. <br /> 3330). Please provide justification for using unspecified material in place <br /> of cemented rockfill. <br /> Response: <br /> There was an excess of flowable fill at that time, rather than waste the <br /> material, it was used in place of cemented rockfill. In essence, another <br /> concrete cap was placed with a lower compressive strength. Figure U27 <br /> has been revised to state "Approved 4001" mix, the mix that is shown in <br /> Appendix M.3. <br /> iii. Survey data graphic on Figures UG 11 and UG25 suggest three layers of <br /> geogrid were placed, but the quantities listed on these figures indicate <br /> only 2 layers of geogrid were placed. Please address this discrepancy. <br /> Response: <br /> Figure UG11 has been revised to reflect 3 layers of geogrid as well as the <br /> area updated. Figured UG25 only has 2 layers of geogrid, however, there <br /> are large areas of overlap and the southwest end is wider than the 38 feet <br /> called out on the northeast end. The area is correct. Both figures are <br /> included in this addendum. <br /> c. Appendices M.7 and M.8: All the geogrid tests appear to be Tensar's UX180060 <br /> geogrid. The technical specification (2776.1) in Appendix E lists Tensar's <br /> UC1800HS geogrid or equivalent. Unfortunately, the 2776.1 specification does <br /> not specify values for two of the conformance tests performed and documented <br /> in Appendix M.8 <br /> Response: <br /> Amec Foster Wheeler contacted Tensar to confirm that UX180060 and <br /> UX1800HS are the same product. Tensar uses UX180060 as a product code. A <br /> note has been made in section 5.4 to indicate they are the same product and is <br /> included with this addendum. The 2 percent and 10 percent testing provided in <br /> Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. <br /> 2000 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite 2-1000 <br /> Denver, CO 80222 <br /> Tel: (303) 935-6505 <br /> Fax: (303) 935-6575 <br /> amecfw.com Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.