2014-01-24_REVISION - C1981012

• Permit No: C1981012
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/24/2014
• Doc Name: Follow Up to Initial Adequacy Review
• From: DRMS
• To: Greg Smith
• Type & Sequence: TR68
• Email Name: LDS
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO
D I V I S I ON OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
January 24, 2014 John W. Hickenlooper
Governor
Mike King
Greg Smith Executive Director
New Elk Coal Company, LLC
Loretta E. Pineda
122 West First Street Director
Trinidad, CO 80182
Re: New Elk Mine (Permit No. C- 1981 -012)
Technical Revision No. 68, (TR -68)
Follow -up to Initial Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division) recognizes that some of the
material submitted for Technical Revision 68 (TR68) for the New Elk mine was not discussed in the
Initial Adequacy Review letter, dated November 27, 2013. Specifically, Gorham Energy Consultants
(GEC), acting on behalf of New Elk Coal Company (NECC), proposed that a new section be added to
the permit application packet, but it was not reviewed in the November 27 letter. The proposed section 3
is entitled "Performance Bond Requirements ", and provides additional information regarding
assumptions used for calculation of the Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE), together with justification
for their use.
The Division has the following concerns or questions regarding the proposed assumptions. (Since this
letter can be considered a continuation of the November 27 initial adequacy review letter, the
numbering is continued from that letter. As the proposed material is entirely new, the numbered points
go beyond the list in the MT6 findings document, to which TR68 is a response):
Rule 3.02: Performance Bond Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations
27. In Section 3.0, page 2, NECC proposes that the Operator skill level for reclamation tasks be
considered above average and use a 0.9 adjustment. However, there is no explanation of why
this value should be utilized. Customarily, the Division uses "average operator" for operator
skill as a component of the correction factor. This value represents the quality of workers that a
contractor awarded a state contract would be expected to be able to hire and should in no way
be confused with the quality of equipment operator that NECC may currently have on staff. If
NECC requests a higher skill level than "average" for equipment operator for reclamation tasks,
a justification for the higher skill level will be required.
28. In Section 3.0, page 2, under "Material Consistency" NECC incorrectly states that the
"correction factor for material constituency is less than 1.0..." The Division believes this
statement needs to be corrected to "...material consistency..."
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines