Laserfiche WebLink
.... a • <br />) ,~ <br />MINE L,~1ND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Departr ent o~ awral Resources <br />1313 S. rmar SL. Roam 2+5 <br />Denver, .,Q~203 <br />303 965-356% <br />Fa x: 303 833~A+~6 <br />~ i ~T~ ur CvLG~uG <br />OF' ~~fp <br />t~:~-~~~ <br />°i- ° 18 <br />.`Y. ~^ <br />~ y876 ~ <br />Foy Romer. <br />Gavemor <br />Freo R. Banta. <br />Division Director <br />DATE: January 18, 1990 <br />~ ~, <br />T0: Steven G. Renner, Senior Reclamation Specialist <br />,` <br />FROM: James A. Pendleton, Ph.D., Supervisory Geologist ~-m-~-~-+-- "L~ <br />RE: Battle Mountain Gold Company's Amendment= Geotech al Adequacy <br />(File #M-88-112)' <br />I have completed a review of Battle Mountain Gold Company's San Luis Project <br />amendment application and their subsequent responses to your initial adequacy <br />comments. In formulating my opinion, I have considered the comments rendered <br />at my request by Dr. W. Pat Rogers, Supervisory Engineering Geologist with the <br />Colorado Geological Survey. Dr. Rogers is well versed in seismology <br />considerations for structure stability. He was co-author of the 1981 Colorado <br />Geological Survey publication titled "Earthquake Potential in Colorado" <br />(Bulletin 43). For consistency with your earlier record, I will present my <br />brief comments in the format of your earlier adequacy comments. <br />Topic 5: Mill Facility Seismic Design <br />Dr. Rogers expressed a concern (See attached memo, Item 3.) regarding the <br />seismic design criteria for the Mill facilities. "Given the acknowledged <br />potential seismicity of the site it would seem essential that the facility be <br />designed for at least UBC (Unified Building Code) Seismic Zone 2 (this would <br />be about .15g bedrock acceleration). There was uncertainty on the point by <br />the applicant at our last meeting as to what parameter was used. The more <br />conservative zonation is needed because of personnel and hazardous materials <br />safety considerations. Clarification is needed on this point." I concur with <br />Dr. Rogers' recommendation. <br />Topic 15: Liquifaction Potential of the Tailings <br />Battle Mountain's consultant, Steffen Robertson & Kirsten (SRK) <br />your request fora liquifaction <br />projected material gradation, M <br />of the tailings would not occur <br />structure (Attachment 4, Figure <br />appropriate, as. _Torig as, the- tail <br />from the proposed- tatTings-pF ca e <br />potential investigation. Based <br />r. Rob Dorey of SRK projects that <br />in any critical...portions of the <br />D .6-16) . Mr.' Dorey's- roricbus4on <br />responded to <br />upon the <br />liquifaction <br />tailings <br />impo~tant~titherefore, to verify the material properties of~thet <br />m5~terials; and to.-report the results to the Division..- <br />