REP36500

• Permit No: C1981014
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 7/8/1996
• Doc Name: WASTEBANK COMPACTION AND CERTIFICATION SOUTHFIELD MINE C-81-014
• From: DMG
• To: ENERGY FUELS COAL INC
• Permit Index Doc Type: Waste Pile/Fill Report
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~~
{~ _ +I
• ~ • III IIIIIIIIIIIIII
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmem of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SI ,Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX [phone]
July 8, 1996
Mr. Al Weaver
Southfield Mine
Energy Fuels Coal, Inc.
P.O. Box 459
Florence, Colorado 81226
Re: Wastebank Compaction and Certification
Southfield Mine (C-81-014)
Dear Mr. Weaver:
~I
I~~~~.
DEPARTMENT' OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
tames 5 Lxhhcad
E~rcuove Duec~or
Michaa•I tl. Long
Division Durclor
From a review of recent compaction test results submitted to the
Division for the coal wastebank at the Southfield Mine as well as
correspondence between the Division and EFCI during the last year
and a half, it has become apparent that some problems exist with
either the compaction testing, the reporting thereof, or both.
EFCI began submitting reports of the waste bank compaction test
results during the second quarter of 1995 in response to Division
concerns over the stability of the waste pile. An October 23, 1995
letter from the Division to EFCI spelled out that the compaction
testing reports should include 1) site conditions, 2j test
locations, 3) testing methods and 4) compaction test results. The
Division also requested that all previous compaction tests be
submitted.
The October 23, 1995 letter from the Division also questioned the
adequacy of the current compaction testing program (only two
testing locations and conducting testing in time increments rather
than basing testing frequency on when lifts are completed) given
the size of the waste pile. EFCI responded to that concern by
committing to re-evaluating the compaction testing program and
submitting the results of the evaluation to the Division by
November 30, 1995.
To date, the Division has not received the results of this
evaluation, and subsequent compaction test reports submitted have
included only a very general description of site conditions and a
range of compaction and moisture content values. The reports did
not include test locations or a description of testing methods.
Additionally, it does not appear that the previous compaction tests
requested by the Division were submitted.