My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-06-03_REVISION - M1977211
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977211
>
2010-06-03_REVISION - M1977211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:12:45 PM
Creation date
6/4/2010 11:55:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977211
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/3/2010
Doc Name
Submittal
From
Castle Concrete Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR15
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.
/
16
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
Although the above referenced graphics give a general idea of the conditions at the Pikeview Quarry there is <br />not a great deal of detail. The rest of this document will provide that detail. <br />BACKGROUND: As was stated in the Technical Revision submitted to the DRMS in January of 2010: <br />"After the second slide it became very apparent that the area was not safe to :perform investigative work with <br />the current conditions of a continually moving slope. Personnel from Castle Concrete, CTL Thompson and <br />Buckley Powder Company met to determine the "best method" to facilitate removing the hanging material so <br />the geotechnical work could begin". Originally large quantities of water were proposed to be pumped to the <br />top of the quarry in an effort to again saturate the limestone and the slip area beneath the limestone (See <br />Exhibit 6). However, there is no exact timeline that can be established to determine how long this method <br />might take before failure occurs along with the fact that it is virtually impossible to guarantee the water <br />would end up where it is intended with the large number of fissures in the rock. <br />Horizontal boring and loading a conventional hole with explosives was also reviewed. This method was also <br />eliminated because it is unknown whether the charges could get to the area needed to be most effective. It <br />was estimated we would be drilling over 180 feet in some areas. <br />Rod Schuch, a Buckley Powder Blasting Engineer, and Tom Terry, PE, PG, believe it would not take a great <br />deal of explosives to bring down the remaining scarp. As Mr. Schuch has said "what we are attempting to <br />create is a geological failure which brings the remaining slide area down. Based on the number of scarps, <br />(See Exhibit 7), along with the ever increasing size of the scarps, (see Exhibit 14), it was thought that by <br />placing charges directly into the existing scarps that when detonated there would be enough vibration to <br />unhinge the remaining hanging rock or force it to a more stable position. Unfortunately neither situation <br />occurred. Castle Concrete did not view the event as a failure, rather part of the investigative process with an <br />outcome that did not meet our expectations. <br />It is this outcome that has led Castle Concrete to where we are currently. Since day one of the slide, Castle <br />Concrete has not been willing to put anyone in harm's way. Castle has been very consistent during the <br />investigation and evaluation process... SAFETY TRUMPS EVERYTHING ELSE. So far this has been a <br />very effective process. Castle researched a number of options the DRMS put forward on monitoring systems <br />and settled on the Lieca, Total Robotic Station 1800. Although it took longer than the Division anticipated, <br />the monitoring system was in place and operational at the time of the second slide. Monitoring continues to <br />be an essential part of the formulation of the current Technical Revision. <br />SCOPE OF WORK: During the last nine months several items have become quite clear with regard to slope <br />movement at the Pikeview Quarry: <br />1. The southern scarp including prisms 13, 15, 18 continue to move daily. <br />2. Prisms 19, 25, 26 and 27, all either north or west of the original scarp, have shown no signs of <br />movement.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.