Laserfiche WebLink
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department o(Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 <br />DATE: June 7, zooo RECEIVED <br />TO: David Berry /I <br />~l^(/~fl-E' JUN U E 2000 <br />FROM: Dan Mathews ~,r~ <br />RE: Roadside Mine Technical ~iglon 32"~ ~'~j~l~y <br />Revision Order Response (Mine Closure Reclamation Changes) <br />Permit C-1981-041 <br />DIVISION OF <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINING•SA FETY <br />Bil I Owens <br />Governor <br />Greg E. Walther <br />Executive Director <br />Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />David, I have enclosed two sets of Powderhom Coal Company's (PCC) TR-32 application, which was <br />submitted in response to our Revision Order letter of February 18, 2000. I have also enclosed two copies of <br />the Revision Order letter. 1 would like to request review assistance with respect to geomorphic <br />implications of revised final configuration and diversion design for refuse areas CRDA-1 and CRDA-2 <br />(Item 6), as well as hydrologic review associated with the proposed new CRDA-2, 100 year upland <br />diversion (Item 6). Also, note that, in Item 9, operator is complying with our suggestion to remove the <br />large rock drop struMltres from the relocated Coal Creek permanent diversion segment If there are any <br />hydrologic or geomorphic objections to this proposal, we need to raise them now. Finally, I need a <br />hydro[ype to review the proposed sediment convol plan for the Unit Train Loadout, reclaimed <br />configuration (Item 12), and at some point I will need a hydrologist to review the Culver removal low <br />water crossings (Item 10), assuming BLM signs off and such plans are submitted. <br />]im Pendleton was instrumental in recommending removal of the rock drop stmMures fiom the stream <br />channel, and expressed some interest in the geomorphic concerns relating to the CRDA-2 final topography <br />and upland diversion issue. If he is willing and available, it would be good to have him take a look at Ule <br />proposal. I don't know which surface hydrologist is least bogged down these days. Mike Boulay seems to <br />get stuck with most of my sediment/drainage control reviews, but you can assign it as you deem <br />appropriate. i'll be calling the submittal complete on June 15, and would like to request review memos by <br />July 10. <br />Note that Stover states a couple limes that the proposed changes should not result in any additional <br />reclamation cos[. 1 am sure he is under pretty strict marching orders to avoid increased reclamation costs if <br />at all possible. The current liabibty amount and the current bond amount are identical, and Utey do not <br />want to increase the bond. Our midterm review is due July 3. I plan to have Jim Stark update the wst <br />estimate for the midterm, and subsequently amend that updated estimate as appropriate for Ulis revision. <br />With regard to the Bond, a Quaker Coal official I met last week at the mine who is apparently calling the <br />shots (or Powderhom now, mentioned that the insurance company they use (or most of their reclamation <br />bonds back east is in financial Vouble (he mentioned bankruptcy and possible takeover by another <br />company). The company he referred to is Frontier Insurance of New York, issuer of a S2.6M surety we <br />hold for Roadside. Is there anything we should do with this information at this time? <br />Also, the company has made it clear that they do not plan to initiate any large scale reclamation projects <br />(such as refuse area final reclamation) until 2001, which is allowable under their currently approved <br />reclamation schedule (which basically specifies initiation of reclamation within one year of mining <br />cessation). They mentioned the possibility (pretty unlikely I imagine) that PSC miglll be interested in <br />modifying their Cameo plant to burn refuse from [he waste piles at the mine, if they can qualify for some <br />program whereby they would be subsidized by the feds. 1 said to keep us posted, but if there wasn't <br />something pretty concrete to indicate that this was real, we would require that refuse area final reclamation <br />be initiated in accordance with approved plans in 2001. <br />