1987-12-01_PERMIT FILE - C1981017 ‎(107)‎

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 12/1/1987
• Doc Name: New Coal Refuse Disposal Facility
• Section_Exhibit Name: Chapter II Appendix II-B-5 ‎(Part 2 of 2)‎
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

` � STATE OF �-:OLOZA.DO
N
• �'t Roy Romer, Governor
'187e` �.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION �
I
DAVID C. SHELTON, Director
DATE: June 30, 1987
TO: Candy Thompson
FROM: Jeffrey Deckler
RE: MID-CONTINENT TECHNICAL REVISION NO. 8 - SUTEY EXPANSION -
FILE NO. 81-017
The following comments are based on my review of all TR-8 submittals received
through June 17, 1987. Comments made in earlier memos, which were
inadvertently omitted from the Division's initial adequacy letter, have been
updated as necessary.
1. The revision does not appear to be formatted such that it can be inserted
into the permit upon approval . The operator should provide the
appropriate revised pages, and number the maps to facilitate incorporation
into the permit.
2. The revision presents average topsoil stripping and replacement depths for
the Sutey pile. However, in order for the Division to determine whether
sufficient material exists to complete the reclamation plan, more detailed
calculations on topsoil volumes must be presented. For stripping depths,
the operator should provide a table which substantiates the estimate of
27,154 cubic yards presented on page one. This table must include the
acreage of each sub-area to be stripped, stripping depth for each are4,and
total strippable volume for each area. For replacement depths, the
operator must provide a table showing the acreage of each "topsoil
replacement unit" (aspect) , the depths of replacement for each unit, and
the total volume required for each unit. The volume totals from these two
tables should balance.
3. Considering the stability problems experienced with the existing topsoil
stockpile at Sutey, the operator should make the commitment that no
topsoil will be salvaged or stockpiled if there is snow on the ground. In
addition, the operator should provide a plan to protect the reference area
from disturbance or contamination by material stored adjacent to its
boundary. The establishment of buffer zones may be appropriate for this
purpose.
4. The unit costs used for bonding calculations are acceptable. However,
calculations must be included for removal of new ponds. Indirect costs
must also be adjusted at this time. Demolition costs for additions to the
conveyer system may be deferred until Phase II of the plan.
lal
0799F
96
423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 Tel. [phone]