APPCOR11665

• Permit No: C1994082
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 1/24/1995
• Doc Name: YOAST MINE C-94-082 PERMIT APPLICATION PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW
• From: DMG
• To: SENECA COAL CO PEABODY WESTERN COAL CO
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iuiiiini ~ •
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmenl of Natural Rewurces
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
January 24, 1995
Michael G. Altavilla
Engineering Manager
Seneca Coal Company
P.O. Drawer D
Hayden, Colorado 81639
Gary W. Wendt
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Peabody Western Coal Company
1300 South Yale Street
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
RE: Yoast Mine (C-94-082)
Permit Application
Preliminary Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Altavilla and Mr. Wendt:
I~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
lames 5. lochhead
Executive Director
M¢hael B. Long
Drvrs~on Director
In myy correspondence dated January 20, 1995, I noted that the Division had not yet reviewed
Tab 25 of the Yoast Mine permit application. This tab pertains to the reclamation cost estimate
for the mine. Division staff have now completed a preliminary review, and have the following
questions and comments.
Tab 25 -Bonding
On page 3, under Backfilling and Grading, SCC states that a swell factor of 12%a was
used based on studies discussed in Chapter 20. No studies could be located in Chapter
(Tab) 20 regarding swell factors. The only statement relating to overburden swell was
that a 12% swell factor was used in determining post mine topography at the Yoast Mine.
In Tab 21, it appears that the overburden consists of 1/2 clay and 1/2 sandstone. The
Division believes for this composition of material, a swell factor of 17% is more accurate
( based on estimate in Caterpillar Performance Handbook for 50% rock, 50% earth).
Please submit more information supporting SCCs 12% swell factor, or revise the estimate
using 17% swell factor.
2. Since there aze no operations maps showing the location of each pit (only yearly mining
blocks), the Division was unable to calculate the volume of matenal associated with the
worst case disturbance of 1997. Please provide the Division with the working maps,
STAMP and RANGER data sheets used to predict the worst case disturbance.
3. On page 8 of Tab 19, SCC states that spoil sampling will be conducted after final grading
is completed and prior to soil replacement. Please include a cost for spoil sampling in
the estimate.