Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />"DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 COLORADO <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 I V I S I O N O F <br />ECLAMATION <br />M I N I N G <br />- &- <br />/April 19, 2011 SAFETY <br />John W. Hickenlooper <br />Govemor <br />Miguel Hamarat <br />Mike King <br />limax Molybdenum Company Executive Director <br />Henderson Mine Loretta Pifieda <br />P.O. Box 68 Director <br />Empire, Colorado 80438 <br />Re: Climax Molybdenum; File No. M-1977-342 !•-'O' <br />Henderson Mine; Technical Revision (TR-04) Adequacy Review <br />Dear Mr. Hamarat, <br />On April 1, 2011, the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division) received a Technical Revision (TR- <br />04) to the 112 Construction Materials Reclamation Permit for the Henderson Mine, File No. M-1977-342. <br />Review of the information received determined the following items must be revised before the Division can <br />approve the revision: <br />1. Rule 7.3.2(2) requires, "... Applicant must provide a certified verification by a professional engineer <br />or other appropriately qualified professional that will confirm that the facility was constructed in <br />accordance with the approved design plan." Based on the submittal, it does not appear Mr. <br />Hamarat, Mr. Dillon Benbow, or Ms. Amanda Hren are registered Colorado professional engineers. <br />It appears the individuals fall under the "other appropriately qualified professional" category based <br />on their titled positions. Please verify and provide documentation the individuals are qualified to <br />approve the design plans. <br />Attachment 1- Mill Process Water Supply Pipeline Replacement <br />2. The cover letter indicates construction was approved in a July 6, 2010 letter from Allen Sorenson. <br />Drawing 404-596-Partial is dated 1/24/01 and cannot be considered "As-Built" for the pipeline <br />replacement. Please explain this discrepancy and submit revised as-built drawings for the pipeline. <br />3. None of the nine (9) drawings in Attachment 1 have any labels or indicators to suggest they are as- <br />built drawings. The "Description of Revision" lines in the title blocks are all blank except for R1 <br />(404-789), which is described as "Approval". Standard practice for as-built drawings is to revise the <br />revision number to one higher than the "Issued for Construction" revision and change the <br />description to "As-Built", "As-Constructed" or even "Record Drawings". Please explain this <br />discrepancy and submit revised as-built drawings for the pipeline. <br />4. The Attachment 1 cover letter written by Mr. Benbow states "There were several modifications <br />made during the installation of the pipeline..." and "Modifications made during installation are <br />Office of i <br />Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango <br />Office of <br />Active and Inactive Mines