Laserfiche WebLink
' Preliminary Adequacy Review <br />Bear Coal Co., Inc.. - Bear Mine <br />Page Six <br />Are the stock ponds indicated on <br />roposed as permanent impoundments? <br />standard 9.05.9. <br />Drawing No. 2.04.7(2)(a)-1 (ff. page 97) <br />If so, they must conform to performance <br />PAGE I~7-1 <br />2.05.5 Topsoil <br />7'l~e topsoil concerns are expressed in Section 2.05.4(2)(d). <br />' 2.05.8 & .9 Coal Processing Waste, Non-Coal Processing Waste and Underground <br />Development Waste <br />' Tf~e permit application observes that refuse disposal rules are not applicable (page 66 <br />and 67). However, staff site inspections and examinations of existing stereo- <br />graphic aerial photography of the Bear Coal Mine site suggests that some refuse has <br />been deposited on site. Further, the application also states: "Coal cleaned up at <br />' the mine site will be sold prior to the final covering of the disposal area." (page 67) <br />M y waste now on the site will have to be properly addressed wi7thin the application. <br />2.05.4 (2) (a) Reclamation Timetable PAGE E~6 ri Pi/ <br />1. The applicant states, on page 68 of the application, that "ARCO may wish to succeed <br />' the Bear Coal Company, thereby assuming responsibility for reclamation of the disturbed <br />areas." Atlantic Richfield Company has indicated that this is not the case, and that <br />they do not wish to utilize the present surface facilities of the Bear Coal Company. <br />e applicant should verify that Bear Coal Company is responsible for reclamation of <br />:presently disturbed areas. PAGE E~ <br />T R ~~ 7~n(j ~(l ~ <br />2. rnAZig~,t of5 he(~)(A that Bear Coal Company may be ceasing operations in the <br />' summer of 1982, the detailed timetable for the completion of each major step in the <br />reclamation plan, including sealing of portals, equipment and facilities removal, <br />' clean-up, backfilling and grading, seeding, etc., must be submitted. The anticipated <br />starting date and duration of each step in the reclamation process should be included. <br />TABLE ?,05,4(2)(A)-? <br />7.05.4 (2)(b) Reclamation Cost <br />' I. Supporting calculations must be provided for cost figures supplied in Table <br />2.os.4(2)(b)-1• FIGURE 2,O5,4(2)(B)-1 (A) & (B) <br />' The table on Reclamation Cost Estimates is insufficient in supplying information <br />needed for the calculation of the reclamation bond. Information which should be <br />provided with supporting calculations is based upon a worst case situation and includes <br />' yardage of material to be moved, average haul distances, equipment to be used (make <br />and model numbers), topsoil volumes, seed costs, cost of portal sealing, building <br />removel, equipment time needed with specific reference (i.e., Caterpillar Performance <br />' l/andbook), identification of all assumptions and crorrection factors, equipment cost <br />(or rental), operating cost per hour, fuel cost, and labor. Calculation of the bond <br />is a critical issue in the permitting process. This information is necessary for <br />determining costs accurately if the State were placed in a position where it was <br />responsible for completing reclamation. <br />TABLE 2,Q5,I!(2)(B)-? <br />AND FIGURE i~~5~('(2)(B)-~ <br />IJ <br />