My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE134752
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
400000
>
PERMFILE134752
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:35:26 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 2:40:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000087
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
9/19/2000
Doc Name
MEMO SECOND STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR MILLIKEN PIT APPLICATION M-2000-087
From
DMG
To
TOM SCHREINER
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ <br />STATE OF <br />COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmenf of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman SL, Roam 215 <br />D I V I S I O N O F <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 1303) 866-3567 MINERAL S <br />FAX: (303)832-8106 & <br /> GEOLOGY <br /> RECLAMATION <br /> MINING•SAFETY <br />MEMO Bill Ovens <br /> Grnernor <br />DATE: September 19, 2000 ereti F. walcner <br />TO: Tom Schreiner E+eculrve Direcmr <br />Cr. Carl B. Mount <br /> <br />FROM: Christina Kamnikar~ Mi~nael B. wog <br />Division DueUOr <br />RE: Second Stability Analysis for Milliken Pit application, #M-2000-087 <br />Rocky Mountain Consultants adequately responded to my concerns regarding missing information in the <br />stability analysis. After reviewing their newest submittal, I was able to determine [hat a safety factor of 1.48 <br />could be obtained under the conditions outlined in their geotechnical modeling example. However, I believe <br />[he following limitations should still be put on their setback request. <br />1) The slurry wall must remain 3.8" thick, since this is the thickness modeled for in the analysis. Any other <br />changes in the dimensions should necessitate a new analysis of the slope stability. <br />2) The 20' clearance on the non-mined side of the slurry wall should be committed to around the perimeter, <br />to allow for adequate constmction area consistent with this project's specifications. <br />3) While the preliminary analysis indicates that mining 65' deep, at an angle of 2H:1 V, with a 20' setback <br />from the lip of the excavation before the placement of the slurry wall, does guarantee a minimum factor of <br />safety of I.S, DMG would like to recommend that a setback from the toe of the embankment be <br />committed to, rather than a setback from the edge of the excavation. This allows the Operator to mine at <br />any angle which is convenient for the operation, instead of forcing the excavation to comply with [he strict <br />grade requirement above. If this course of action is taken, DMG would require a minimum setback from <br />the toe of the excavation of 1 17 feet before the slurry wall is constructed. <br />If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (303) 866-4924. <br />C.L. Kamnikar <br />Cc: Carl B. Mount, DMG <br />Allen Sorenson, DMG <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.