My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC18865
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC18865
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:20:04 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:27:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
12/16/2005
Doc Name
Inspection Report
From
DMG
To
Cresson Project
Inspection Date
12/14/2005
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.
/
3
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
ORIGINAL -PUBLIC FILE <br />(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: nn_tegp-yea <br />INSPECTION DATE: t2JL4J115 INSPECTOROS INITIALS: ~_ <br />OBSERVATION <br />The Division conducted a monitoring inspection of the site on 12/14J05. The main purpose of the inspection was <br />to do a joint inspection with Golder and associates on a portion of the Phase IVC solution application tertiary <br />pipes, as that were recently tied in to the pipes away from the infer face ditch pipes due o the concern a spill <br />might occur outside the protected area as it happened in September, <br />Golder project engineer Dr. Lupo had recommended the changes and the Division wanted to make sure <br />Golder was satisfied with the work conducted and that all repair work was in accordance with the approved <br />specification for the pad, before the certification for the changes was submiffed as part of the Technical <br />Revision. Looked at both pipe changes the work appeared to have been conducted in occordance with the <br />Board approved speciRcaflon. Golder engineers agreed to submit the P.E certification report for the changes <br />with the pending iechnicol Revision. Also met Mr. Brent Branson, who Is also a P.E and one of the original Golder <br />Engineers who was oprt of the group that submitted the original leach pad design for Phase i project in 1994. He <br />will be replacing Dr. Lupo, who is moving to a Golder office in Australia. During the inspection with both Golder <br />representatives present CCBV discussed the possibility of raising the Squaw Gulch overburden storage tiff <br />height, from the current 300 feet maximum -ength to 400 feet. Both Golder design engineers stated that there <br />were mony overburden storage areas in excess of 400 feet in both Arizona and Nevada and that they will use <br />the most conservative design criteria, to demonstrate that the 400 feet liff end dumped until recalamtion will be <br />stable. In addition they stated that in September, they run another stability analysis for the existing Jeff limitation <br />of 300 feet and showed fo the Division that }he tiffs were very stable. They were informed, according to the Hard <br />Rock Rules and Regulations, an operator Is required to demonsfrafe using an Industry wide utilized sfabilify- <br />modeling program. In addition, the Division's engineering staff can recommend additional design criteria that <br />they deem necessary to demonstrate the tiff will be stable. Golder representatives agreed to consider the <br />Division's recommendation, prior to submlffing the model. According to CC&V, the change might only be <br />necessary for one tiff, or until enough mining had taken place where backfilling of the pits can commence. <br />CCBV also mentioned that as discussed before, they now would like to increase the bac~l height of a small <br />portion of the East Cresson backfill from 50 feet to 75 feet. the backfilling of pits is very much recommended by <br />the Division, in fact if CC&V would like to backfill the pits to original contour, the Division will not object. <br />Inspected the Phase 1, 11, 11 AND IV leach pods and collected the following readings from the Nigh and Low <br />volume solution collection Transducers. <br />Phase 1 high Volume solution collection fransducer # 2 was recorded at 53.8 # 3 was of 54.4 Piezometer for the <br />pond was a} 52.6 feet .Low volume transducer # 1 was at .16 and # 2 was a} .56. <br />Phase 1 & 1111 high Volume Solution Collection fransducer # 4 was recorded at 29.8, # 5 was at 17.8 and # 6 was at <br />30.8. Piezometer for the pond was at 30.5 feet. Low Volume transducer # 1 was at . I S and # 2 was at .69 <br />Phase IV high Volume solution collection transducer # 7 was recorded at 40.3, # 8 was at 39.0 # 9 was at 40.1 <br />and # 10 was at 40.3. Low volume # 1 was at 13.9 and # 2 was at 5.0 inches of hydrostatic head (Note: all other <br />fransducer readings are in feet of hydrostatic head, unless otherwise noted) <br />Inspected the external pond, it was holding what appeared to be partially frozen wafer. Low volume <br />hansducers for the pond were recorded of .12.4 for # 1 and 10.8 for # 2 Inspected the under drain area, both the <br />South and four inch pipes were discharging. No changes in the lower pond from the last inspection. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.