REP26709

• Permit No: C1981014
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 7/19/1995
• Doc Name: 1ST QUARTER POND AND REFUSE PILE INSPECTION REPORTS SOUTHFIELD MINE PN C-81-014
• From: DMG
• To: ENERGY FUELS COAL INC
• Permit Index Doc Type: Waste Pile/Fill Report
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~.
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmenl of Natural Resources
1317 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
STATE OF COLORADO
July 19, 1995
Mr. Allen Weaver
Energy Fuels Coal, Inc.
P.O. Box 449
Florence, CO 81226
RE: 1st Quarter Pond and
Southfield Nine; Permit
Dear Mr. Weaver;
iii iiiiuiiiiii iii
I~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor '
lames 5. Eochhead
Executive Direcor
Michael B. long
Drvrsion Director
Refuse Pile Inspection Reports;
No. C-81-O1~
The Division has reviewed the first quarter pond and refuse pile
inspection reports for the Southfield Mine. The reports indicate
the inspection occurred on March 17, 1995. The Division reviewed
the regulations (specifically 4.10 and 4.05.6(13)), the permit
(specifically Exhibit 18), Technical Revisions No. 14 and 15, and
past inspection reports, in order to determine the required
contents of these reports. The following questions and
recommendations resulted from our review.
Refuse Pile Inspection Reports
1. The engineer inspecting the pile notes that the "coal
processing waste bank was visually inspected and found to be
in general compliance with CMLRD approved Reconstruction Plan
for the Coal Processing Waste Bank." The Division assumes the
engineer is referring to a report entitled, "Reconstruction
Plan and Storage Optimization" prepared for Dorchester Coal
Company by Rocky Mountain Geotechnical (RMG) in 1982. From
review of Exhibit 18, it appears that portions of this plan
prepared by RMG has been updated. Is the engineer performing
the inspection aware of the design changes that occurred in
1992? The changes include the depth of each lift and the
disposal ratio of coarse to fine material.
2. From review of the violation that was written regarding the
pile construction (C-92-001) and subsequent correspondence to
abate the violation, which now appears in Exhibit 18, it is
assumed that the question of the stability of the pile at a
1:1 coarse to fine refuse material and the plasticity values
of the material had been answered. However, in the current
quarterly report and previous reports the engineer performing