My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP36500
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP36500
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:14:26 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 7:29:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
7/8/1996
Doc Name
WASTEBANK COMPACTION AND CERTIFICATION SOUTHFIELD MINE C-81-014
From
DMG
To
ENERGY FUELS COAL INC
Permit Index Doc Type
Waste Pile/Fill 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.
/
3
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
<br />Of greatest concern to the Division is the fact that many of the <br />compaction test results indicate that the refuse has been compacted <br />to significantly less than the 90$ Proctor standard. Specifically, <br />one of the tests conducted on September 11, 1995 indicated a <br />compaction range of between 70.4$ and 74.1$. The test conducted on <br />December 15, 1995 had exactly the same results for both top and <br />bottom samples (how does EFCI explain this?). The test conducted <br />on March 13, 1995 indicated a compaction range of 70.5-96.5$ for <br />the top and 74.8$-91.3$. The quarterly reports do not comment on <br />this apparent digression from the required compaction. <br />In conversations during recent on-site inspections, you indicated <br />that there may be some problem with the laboratory analyses because <br />the moisture contents reported would indicate a slurry where this <br />is clearly not the case. Has EFCI made any attempt to rectify the <br />testing procedures or determine whether a problem exists on the <br />ground? Have the engineers recommendations provided in the <br />quarterly reports been followed, and, if so, where is this <br />documented? <br />Based on information available to the Division now, it is not <br />apparent that the pile has been constructed in accordance with the <br />requirements of Rule 4.10.4(3). In order to make an accurate <br />evaluation of the stability of the refuse piles, the Division <br />requires the following: <br />1) Copies of results from all compaction testing conducted <br />on the waste piles in the last five years. <br />2) Copies of the actual field data for all compaction <br />testing conducted on the waste piles to date. The field <br />data should include the results for each data point, the <br />location of each data point, and any comments or <br />recommendations made by the engineer conducting the tests <br />as well as a notation on how EFCI followed up on such <br />recommendations. <br />3) An evaluation of the current compaction testing program. <br />The evaluation should include a demonstration to show <br />whether the two random data points being used are <br />sufficient for the size of the pile, and a demonstration <br />of whether or not the current practice of testing on a <br />quarterly basis rather than when each lift is completed, <br />is sufficient. The Division strongly recommends that <br />EFCI change its testing frequency to be based on lift <br />completion rather than time intervals. <br />4) A summary of the actions that EFCI took, if any, in <br />response to the deficient compaction testing results <br />mentioned above. <br />5) An explanation of any laboratory or reporting errors that <br />may have been made. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.