My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC09399
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC09399
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:10:35 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:41:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
7/8/1997
Doc Name
OSM INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
6/10/1997
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.
/
10
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
documentation, it is possible additional cover material will be required prior to bond <br />release where existing material is shown to be less than the required depth. Timing of <br />the RDA's final reGamation is uncertain at this time due to the mine's temporary <br />cessation of operations and assumption of the permit by Picketwire Processing. <br />As shown by photographs, a benched keyway cut was constructed to stabilize the pile's <br />toe and allow for sub-drainage. Prior to construction of the RDA, drainage through the <br />undisturbed canyon was ephemeral and there were no springs or seeps. An underdrain <br />was constructed in accordance with section 4.09.1(13). The drain branches into east <br />and west segments in smaller tributary canyons, and the western arm branches into a <br />third segment. Underdrain construction progressed in segments as waste disposal <br />progressed northward up the canyon, again as shown in photographs. Mirafi filter fabric <br />was used to cover the drain. Short sections of the underdrain were visible where they <br />protruded from the coal refuse material at the RDA's northeastern and northwestern <br />limits. One of the northwestern branches of the underdrain was covered with coal <br />refuse just beyond the end of the Mirafi fabric as a result of grading the operational <br />surtace to maintain positive drainage. The permittee intends to remove the refuse <br />before tieing-in the fabric for the next drain extension at this location. Other branches of <br />the underdrain, inGuding portions covered with Mirafi fabric, extended from under the <br />refuse. <br />Conclusions <br />DMG found that the MWDP and RDA appeared to be in compliance with the approved <br />pemtit. I agree with that finding, but note the limitations inherent in verifying <br />construction using field measurements in the absence of engineer's certifications to that <br />effect. While most measurements appeared to be within design parameters or Gose to <br />them (knowing our field measurements were not exact), an engineer's certifications that <br />structures were built as designed would provide the level of assurance about the piles' <br />construction and stability that DMG's rules intend them to provide. <br />Mr. Thompson was advised that a number of items need maintenance or should be <br />monitored. Items needing maintenance and/or monitoring inGuded: <br />• the gully erosion of the southwestern outslope of the RDA's operational surtace; <br />• erosion of the outer berm of the western side ditch on the second lift of the RDA; <br />• terrace grading where drainage off the RDA to side ditches needs improvement; <br />• grading on the operational surtace of the RDA where surface runoff should be <br />distributed more evenly between the eastern and western side ditches; <br />• seepage from the west side of the RDA's third reGaimed lift outslope about two <br />thirds of the way up from the second terrace; and <br />7 1997 New Elk Special Focus <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.