My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV07330
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV07330
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:08:12 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:42:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/15/1991
Doc Name
SANBORN CREEK PR PN C-81-022
From
MLRD
To
JIM STEVENS CARL MOUNT
Type & Sequence
PR1
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.
/
9
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
Memo - C, Mount - C-81-022 - 2 - February 15, 1991 <br />Section 1 - Evaluation of Responses to Division Review of November 28, 1990 <br />Operations <br />PLEASE MAP THE 100-YEAR FLOOD LEVELS OF THE NORTH FORK OF THE <br />GUNNISON RIVER ON DRAWING 5-002. OPERATIONALLY, IT IS IMPORTANT <br />THAT THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED FOR THE SANBORN CREEK FACILITIES BE <br />ABOVE THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. <br />The revised Drawing 5-002, has been reviewed. The map is certified as <br />being accurate, and we can assume that the flood boundary has been <br />properly drawn. This issue is resolved. <br />4. PLEASE PROVIDE DESIGNS FOR THE MINE WATER SETTLING POND PER <br />RULE 2.05.3(4) (a ). <br />This request should have cited Rules 2.05.3(4)(a), (b) and (c ). The <br />plans submitted in response to this request are not adequate. First, the <br />mine water settling pond is considered a sediment pond, and as such, it <br />must be designed in accordance with the performance standards of <br />Rules 4.05.6 and 4.05.9. The applicant must submit detailed design <br />diagrams which portray both plan and cross-section views of the <br />impoundment. Embankment dimensions, volume/stage information, spillway <br />configurations, etc. must be shown. The plans must also portray the <br />anticipated stage/discharge information in sufficient detail to allow an <br />accurate assessment of pond storage capacity and water detention time <br />relative to anticipated inflow and outflow. <br />Second, the operator projects a maximum anticipated pond inflow based <br />upon assumptions which may not be appropriate. Randy will provide an <br />assessment of the applicant's projection for mine water inflows. <br />Pursuant to discussions with Randy, it seems that the operator's mine <br />water inflow projection of 237 g.p.m. may not be sufficient. Additional <br />amounts may be encountered due to the position of the mine workings <br />relative to the ground water table, and the presence of fractures <br />throughout the overlying strata. Also, the estimated dewatering rate of <br />80 g.p.m. is not substantiated. The mine plan scheme indicates that the <br />one-third estimate may be flawed. The operator should submit additional <br />information to substantiate the figures used. Such information should <br />include an estimate of fracture flow to the mine workings, more detailed <br />information to substantiate the one-third fraction, and detailed <br />information regarding sump construction phasing, sump volume, and sump <br />locations. <br />We will assess the adequacy of the mine water settling pond design after <br />the above-requested details are submitted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.