My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP10185
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP10185
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:39:38 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:20:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
5/3/1993
Doc Name
C-81-014 EFCIS SOUTH FIELD MINE MIDTERM REVIEW
From
DMG
To
CATHY BEGEJ
Permit Index Doc Type
SUBSIDENCE REPORT
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
r <br />:~ <br />Jim Pendelton suggested that it may be possible to avoid having to change the permit <br />boundary if EFCI can get permission in writing from the affected property owners, allowing <br />them access to those areas of potential subsidence outside the permit area. This would <br />allow EFCI to repair any damage which might occur in those areas. This same approach <br />was used with Mid Continent when their subsidence-affected area crossed off the permit. <br />Item 32: <br />The compaction testing methods employ common practice and should be adequate. I am <br />not sure that testing just twice yearly will really tell you much about the overall stability of <br />the pile. It seems more appropriate to me to require compaction tests at intervals of <br />specific volume or construction stage of the pile, rather than at some arbitrary time period. <br />In this way, testing would be more frequent during high production periods when a lot of <br />material is being placed in the pile, and infrequent during slow periods. Be sure to check <br />and make sure that the stockpile design calls for compaction to 90% of maximum drv <br />density, versus Proctor density. <br />Item 35: <br />I was not impressed with the Isopach map. Although it does "aid" subsidence evaluation, <br />It is at a scale of 1"= 400' when you asked for 1" = 200', and the contour interval is 400 and <br />500 feet! This gives only three isopach lines for each seam over the entire property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.