My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC46109
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC46109
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:49:01 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 11:44:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
10/29/1997
Doc Name
OVERBURDEN HANDLING CRESSON PROJECT CARLTON PROJECT M-80-244
From
PIKES PEAK MINING CO
To
DMG
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
PIKES PEAK 11/~ING COMPANY <br />Operations Office <br />P. O. Box 191 2755 State Highway 67 <br />Victor, Colorado 80860 <br />(7191 689-2977 Fax (7191 689-3254 <br />October 28, 1997 <br /> <br />Mr. Michael B. Long, Director <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 ~ G~A, <br />Re: Overburden Handling Cresson Protect\_J, <br />Dear Mike <br />n <br />u <br />Englewood Office sss <br />5251 DTC Parkway Suite 700 <br />Englewood, Colorado 80111 <br />(3031 889-0700 • Fax (3031 889-0707 <br />"r~Fl1,~b-p <br />OCT 2 g 1997 <br />,,, ,., ,..~,~m..w a ueciony <br />As a follow up to our recent discussion concerning the commentary in Amendment No. 6 (i.e. the <br />Cresson Project) regarding possible lime additions to certain overburden storage areas, I have <br />prepared this letter. T}re brief response to this issue is that the language dealing with lime additions <br />is not applicable to [he current cpcntion. The approach which described possible lime use was <br />replaced with the current approved practice of assaying and separately handling lower and higher <br />sulfur containing overburden material. 1 will set forth a brief history below. <br />The initial proposal by CC&V was to do a visible pyrite sulfur assessment of the overburden <br />material and then, if necessary, selectively handle the overburden and add lime to certain locations <br />within the overburden storage aeeas containine higher concentrations of pyrite based upon the visual <br />assessment. This process was spelled out in a letter from John Hardaway to Berhan Keffelew, dated <br />April 9, 1994, in Attachment ~ at pages 47 - 48. As you may know, afrer extensive negotiations and <br />discussions with DMG this proposed CC&V approach was rejected by DMG. Our proposed <br />approach •was replaced with the current practice employed at the operation as approved by Div1G. <br />This practice requires CC&V to assay all of its overburden material and determine the total sulfur <br />concentration thereof. CC&V then places material [hat contains more than 0.8% sulfur in one <br />storage area (i.e., Ironclad - Globehill pits) mul material of lesser concentrations in other storage <br />areas. This latter practice was reflected in a report submitted by CC&V to DMG dated September, <br />1994 and is located in Volume 7C of Amendment No. 6. <br />The confusion that has apparently arisen results from a simple fact. In dte course of reviewing and <br />approving the practice wluch is currently employed by CC&V and embodied iu Amendment No. 6, <br />CC&V and DMG failed to expressly delete the language which was superseded by the latter <br />approach. This superseded language is contained in documents which constituted a portion of the <br />original permit application which were not intended to be part of the f nal permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.