My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL34572
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL34572
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:55:59 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:59:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
9/3/1996
Doc Name
MINIMUM THICKNESS FOR HAUL ROADS CONSTRUCTED ON GEOMEMBRANE CRIPPLE CREEK AND VICTOR GOLD MINING CO
From
DMG
To
BERHAN KEFFELEW
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
• iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />131 3 Sherman 51., Room ? 15 <br />Dern er, Colorado 80'_03 <br />Phone: (3031 H66-7567 <br />FA%:13031 832-8106 <br />DATE: September 3, 1996 <br />TO: Berhan Keffelew <br />FROM: Allen Sorenson <br />I~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL. <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />Executive Director <br />Michael B Long <br />Division Direc Wr <br />RE: Minimum Thickness for Haul Roads Constructed on Geomembrane, <br />Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mininq Company, Cresson Project, <br />Permit No. M-80-249 <br />In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the submittal from <br />Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Company (CCVG) dated 8/26/96. In <br />this submittal, CCVG, through their consultant Golder Associates, provides <br />a demonstration that the static load imposed on the geomembrane is <br />equivalent for a CAT 773B on a 5 foot thick road and a side dump tractor- <br />trailer on a 3.5 foot thick road. The maximum static load imposed on the <br />geomembrane in either case is estimated by Golder Associates to be 5.1 <br />psi. The concern that I have with the analysis provided by CCVG is with <br />their assumption that equivalent static loadings will provide equivalent <br />protection to the geomembrane. Static loading would not be the critical <br />criteria to be considered, after all, the low volume solution collection <br />fill-geomembrane-drain cover fill cross section was subjected to a static <br />load of 385 psi during pressure testing. The concern with the roadway <br />thickness should appropriately be related to dynamic and shear loads that <br />may be imposed on the geomembrane by the truck traffic, and CCVG should <br />be required to demonstrate that the geomembrane is not subjected to <br />increased dynamic or shear loads under a decreased haul road thickness <br />configuration. <br />cc: Jim Pendleton <br />Jim Dillie <br />C:\WP51\CRESSON.59 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.