My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC02802
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC02802
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:57:50 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:07:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
8/14/1994
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.
/
2
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 />• ~~-.' • (Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # m-80-244 <br />INSPECTION DATE 08 14-94 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />The Division conducted an inspection of the Bite on 8-14-94. <br />Purpose of the inspection was to make sure the severe rainfall <br />that occurred in the area the night before did not cause a problem <br />in the construction of the Arequa gulch underdrain <br />Present during the inspection was Dave Dix of Golder and Associates <br />Before the inspection a brief discussion was held with Mr. Dave Dix <br />about the intensity of the storm the night before and what if any problems <br />were encountered.He stated that no problem other than the usual runoff and <br />alight sediment was observed from the storm. <br />We drove to the underdrain area.There was evidence of sediment from the runoff <br />around the material stockpile area. <br />The entire underdrain from the toe berm to the maximum upstream area of <br />the underdrain waa walked and inapected.Operator has contracted a lined sump <br />north of the toe berm embankment. The two twenty four inch pipes were discharging to <br />this sump. The discharge from the corrugated pipe appeared to be milky[which <br />indicates sediment load] the discharge from the other twenty four inch pipe <br />was clear. There was no discharge coming out of the four inch pipe. <br />Liner installers from Gundle were installing the upper BOMIL.VLDPE liner <br />above the toe berm. <br />Some sediment was noted in the inside Geotextile from runoff which the <br />operator's representative was notified to pull the 80 MIL.liner and either remove <br />and replace the contaminated geotextile liner,which he agreed to do. <br />The mid point of the underdrain from the toe berm,a small excavator <br />with hammer attachment was breaking underdrain rocks exceeding 12" <br />Inspected the finger drains looking up stream the two finger drains <br />that are not tied to the main underdrain were holding some water <br />which was gradually seeping along the side of the main underdrain. <br />Once they are tied to the main underdrain they should function as <br />designed with no head build up. <br />The upper portion of the main underdrain was being filled with <br />with up to 6"of select fill at the time of the inspection. <br />Inspected the lined sump right below the Arequa Gulch main underdrain <br />The purpose of this lined sump ie to protect the three main pipes from <br />filling up with sediment.A decant riser was placed in the middle of <br />the sump to facilitate the flow and avoid sediment from entering the <br />three pipes and causing problem.The sump appeared to be functioning as <br />designed. <br />Operator had also placed straw-bales to control erosion up stream of the sump. <br />No major problem associated with the storm was noted. <br />I 6 E Contact Address <br />NAME John Hardaway <br />OPERATOR CC&VG <br />STREET P.O.BOX 191 <br />CITY/STATE/ZIPVictor Colorado 80860 <br />cc: Carl Mount <br />^ CE <br /> ^ HL <br />^ FS <br /> ^ HW <br /> ^ HMWMD (CH) <br />^ SE <br />^ WQCD (CH) <br />^ OTHEA <br />BK <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.