2008-06-13_REVISION - C1981013

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 6/13/2008
• Doc Name: Email Regarding Bond Release Items
• From: Kent Gorham
• To: Dan Hernandez
• Type & Sequence: SL6
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

C
• Remaining Bond Amount:
No. Bond will likely be much higher than $10,000.
Kent Gorham
Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety
1313 Sherman Street, Rm 215
Denver CO 80203
[phone] direct
[phone] general
[e-mail]
From: Hernandez, Daniel
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:44 AM
To: Gorham, Kent
Subject: FW: Golden Eagle Bond Release Items
Kent -
Page 2 of 3
Whenever you have a chance, but before we propose to a decision on Golden Eagle's SL-06, I'd like to go over
the e-mail below and find out where these things stand.
Thank you sir!
From: Hernandez, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:04 AM
To: Gorham, Kent
Subject: Golden Eagle Bond Release Items
Kent, with regard to Golden Eagle bond release app SL06 and our findings document, would you mind looking
into these items? Thanks.
• Termination of Water Monitoring/Termination of Submittal of AHRs: I checked with Dave on the
termination of water monitoring and termination of submittal of AHRs at Golden Eagle in conjunction with
the SL06 application. Dave said it is normally our policy to require permittees to obtain approval for
termination of water monitoring via a TR. He did say, however, that at this point, we could handle the
termination of water monitoring as best we see fit. Do you know of any correspondence in our files
between DRMS and Basin/New Elk Coal Company that could be construed as granting approval to the
permittee to stop water monitoring (maybe a past AHR review, or a past Mid-Term or Renewal Findings
document, or maybe even an inspection report)? If not, do you know of any correspondence that occurred
prior to or during the review of the SL06 app that discussed the termination of water monitoring in
conjunction with the SL app?
. Reclamation of Water Monitoring Wells: Did you mention at last Friday's team meeting that
Basin/NECC had already reclaimed all the water monitoring wells it is required to reclaim? Or does the
permittee have some wells that still need reclaiming? Will the permittee leave any monitoring wells open
permanently? If so, do we know who will hold the well permits for those permanent wells?
• "Pollution": Dave brought this up during his recent review of Janet's Grassy Gap TOJ Findings
Document. In Rule 3.03.2(2) is the requirement that our "evaluation of the reclamation work" consider
"whether pollution of surface or subsurface water is occurring, the probability of the future occurrence of
such pollution, and the estimated cost of abating such pollution". So if you haven't already looked into this
in your review of the SL06 app, please do so.
6/20/2008