My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-07-30_REPORT - C1996083
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2012-07-30_REPORT - C1996083
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:04:19 PM
Creation date
7/31/2012 7:30:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
7/30/2012
Doc Name
2nd Quarter 2012 Wastebank Review Letter
From
DRMS
To
J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc.
Permit Index Doc Type
Waste Pile/Fill Report
Email Name
BFB
SB1
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
STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br /> <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 <br /> <br /> <br />John W. Hickenlooper <br />July 30, 2012 <br />Governor <br /> <br />Mike King <br /> <br />Executive Director <br /> <br />J. E. Stover & Associates, Inc. <br />Loretta E. Pineda <br />2352 North 7th St., Unit B <br />Director <br />Grand Junction, CO 81501 <br /> <br /> <br />Re: Bowie No. 2 Mine (Permit No. C-1996-083) <br /> Coal Mine Waste Bank Nos. 1, 2 &4 <br />nd <br />2 Quarter 2012 Inspection Report Review <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Stover: <br /> <br />nd <br />The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety received the 2 Quarter 2012 Inspection Report for the Bowie No. <br />2 Coal Mine waste banks 1, 2 and 4 on July 19, 2012. After a review of the report, the Division has the following <br />comments: <br /> <br /> <br />1. The cover letter for the report states that 11 tests failed. A detailed review of the report shows that 14 tests <br />failed and one test reported as ‘failed’ actually passed. Please explain the following discrepancies: <br />a. The cover letter text states test #625 “failed” and it is marked on the report as “not within spec”, but <br />its percent compaction is listed as 90.1 which is an adequate compaction. <br />b. Test #591 is listed as 90.0, but with the max dry density and dry density figures provided, the <br />compaction would be 89.8. <br />c. Test #600 is listed as 90.0, but with the max dry density and dry density figures provided, the <br />compaction would be 89.8. <br />d. Test #666 is listed as 90.0, but with the max dry density and dry density figures provided, the <br />compaction would be 89.9. <br />e. Test #671 has a listed percent compaction of 87.8 but is not marked as ‘not within spec’. <br /> <br />2. The following tests list a different percent compaction that is not consistent with the percent compaction of <br />the max dry density and dry density figures provided: <br />a. Test #603 lists the percent compaction as 91.7, but with the max dry density and dry density figures <br />provided, its compaction is 102.0. <br />b. Test #647 lists the percent compaction as 88.0, but with the max dry density and dry density figures <br />provided, its compaction is 83.1. <br />c. Test #664A lists the percent compaction as 95.5, but with the max dry density and dry density <br />figures provided, its compaction is 101.9. <br /> <br />3. Test #561 failed in January and is not listed in the current compaction report as being retested. Will it get <br />retested? <br /> <br /> <br />Office of Office of <br /> <br />Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.