GENERAL42110

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 7/22/1994
• Doc Name: FAX COVER CRESSON PROJECT PN M-80-244 COMMITMENT 33 SPECIFICATIONS MODIFICATION OF SPECIFICATIONS
• From: CRIPPLE CREEK & VICTOR GOLD MINING CO
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~._...--1 sss
` ~' ~ ID ~9-689-3254 JUL 22 4 III IIIIIIIIIIIII III Z
~~ Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company
AlOlnl VGnWrs- PY~tl n.rk M4Jnp Oomprn% Mrrpa
(r ~(7 Op~nllon~ Olllp EnpNwood Orrlp
\A7~L-V P.O. Box 191, 2755 Slate Hiphwey 87 6251 DTC Parkway, Suite 700,
Victor, Colorado 80960 Colorado 80111
[phone] • FAX [phone] [phone] • FAX (303) 86
July 22, 1994
SENT BY FACSIMILE -COPY FOLLOWS BY MAIL
Englewood
9-0707
Mr. Berhan Kcffelew
Environmental Protection Sptxialist
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mines and Geology .
Office of Mined Land Reclamation
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Reference: Cresson Project:_Pumit Number M-80-244: Commitment Number "33"
(SlrxificaGons) -Modification of Specifications for Stackin¢ (ieotextile.
Dear Mr. Keffelew:
Pursuant to the approved application for Amendment Numbu 6 to the subject permit and Cripple
Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company's ("CC&V") commitment number '33" Thereto, the
following request for approval is submitted to the Office of Mined Land Reclamation by CC&V.
Commitment number 33 reads:
33. 'Design and spec{~icotion changes, as defined In Section 6.OS of the CQi! plan and
technical specj/Fcations, shall only be made with wrllten agreement o~'the OMI,R.
The purpose of this lettu is to document the need for ahouse-keeping chazige in an existing
specification drat relates to storage of rolls of gcotcxtilc. Subsection 1.04C5 I)clivcry, Storage,
and Handling of Section 02777.0 Geotextile of the Technical Specifications states that: The rolls
shall be stored on a pneparrd surface (not wooden pallets) and should trot be :•tacked more thou
t1Va rolls high.
As noted by Allen Sorenson of the Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR) during his site
inspection on July 7, 1994, the rolls of stacked geotexdle exceeded the maximrm stacking height
of 2 rolls: The rolls were stacked approximately ]0 high and showed visible signs of puncture
damage from rehandling.
As discussed with Allen, the stacking requirements generally pertain to geon-embrane and nol
geotextile and the stacking of the geotexlile will nol be detrimental to the: product if done
correctly (minimizing damage by front-end loader). Allen stated that because the requirement
was in the Technical Specifications he must note it in iris inspection report. tie suggested that