GENERAL36445

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 12/10/1981
• Doc Name: Stips 3 5 13 14 19 32 42 - response review
• From: MLR
• To: ARCO COAL CO
• Permit Index Doc Type: STIPULATIONS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

,~
STATE OF COLORADO PiCNnnDn Ins++a Gu.~ III III III III IIII III
DEPARTMENY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 999
D. Monte Pascoe. Executive Director
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
423 Centennial Building. 1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 60203 Tel. [phone]
David C. Shelton
Director
December 10, 1981
Ms. Paige Beville
Coordinator - Permits and Compliance
ARCO Coal Company
P.O. Box 5300
Denver, Colorado 80217
Re: Review of Responses to Stipulations
Our File No. C-007-80; Mt. Gunnison No. 1 Mine
Dear tis. Beville:
The Division has reviewed ARCO Coal Company's responses to stipulations 92,
5, I3, 14, 19, 3 and 32 as listed in the MLRD permit document. The following
comments detail the status of resolution of the terms and conditions set
forth in these stipulations, and point out what additional information, if
any, will be required by the Division before the requirements of these stipu-
lations can be considered satisfied.
1. Stipulation No. 92 (OSM stipulation No. 33) concerns the inclusion of
the report entitled "Report on Stability Analysis and Recommendations for
Reclaimed Surface Facilities at the ARCO Mt. Gunnison No. I Mine" as Exhibit
3.2.2.C. within the permit application. ARCO's September 29, 1981 response
to this stipulation included the appropriate labels and revised page 3-29a,
which indicates clear conformance with the recommended reclamation specifics
within the report. Therefore, the terms and conditions of Stipulation No. 42
can be considered satisfied.
2. Stipulation No. 5 (OSM stipulation No. 29) concerns the submittal of
a revised design for pipes 10 and I1, which will provide for sufficient flow
capacity to prevent ditch overtopping. ARCO's September 30, 1981 response to
this stipulation provided an explanation that, due to curvature of that portion
of the access road containing the two pipes, the southernmost shoulder is, in
fact, "superelevated", resulting in an actual frcelioard of 72" at the inlet end,
which is 11" higher than the C1" required. The elevation figure given on
Map C-009 did not reflect the superelevated condition, but a level condition.
Therefore, a revised design for pipes 10 and 11 will not be required and the
terms and conditions of Stipulation No. 5 can be considered satisfied.