2010-11-23_REVISION - C1980007 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 11/23/2010
• Doc Name: Comment Letter
• From: DRMS
• To: Mountain Coal Company, LLC
• Type & Sequence: MR366
• Email Name: DIH
• Email Name: TAK
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
e - -
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
November 23, 2010
Ms. Kathy Welt
Mountain Coal Company L.L.C.
P. 0. Box 591
5174 Highway 133
Somerset, CO 81434
Re: Adequacy Review Letter, Mountain Coal Company L.L.C.
The West Elk Mine, DRMS Permit No. C-1980-007
Minor Revision No. MR-366: Update of Signs and Markers
Dear Ms. Welt:
D IV IS I ON Of
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
We have reviewed the application for MR-366 to the West Elk Mine, updating the section of the DRMS
permit pertaining to Mountain Coal Company's use of signs and markers. We have the following comment:
1. On October 14, 2010, DRMS sent an e-mail message to Mountain Coal Company (permittee for the
West Elk Mine) and Blue Mountain Energy Inc (permittee for the Deserado Mine) entitled "RE:
Perimeter Disturbance Markers Policy". In this e-mail, we informed Mountain Coal and Blue
Mountain Energy of a new policy that had been developed in conjunction with input from the Denver
Field Division staff of the US Office of Surface Mining. This e-mail stated:
"Perimeter markers will now be required at underground coal mines to mark the
perimeter of only those areas associated with long-term operations or facilities.
Perimeter markers will need to be erected at long-term operations/facilities before
surface disturbances associated with those operations/facilities begin, and will need to
be maintained until those surface disturbances are granted Phase H/ bond release.
Perimeter markers will not be required to demarcate approved surface disturbance
boundaries associated with methane drainage wells; however, Mountain Coal Company's
current practice of utilizing 6" x 12" signs to denote locations of MDW sites for the benefit of
DRMS inspectors, MCC personnel, and the public is exemplary, so we will suggest in our
review of MR-366 that MCC continue this practice".
Please therefore revise the text in the "Access Control" section of the West Elk Mine permit
(currently, pages 2.05-27 and 2.05-28) to incorporate the language from the 10/14/10 e-mail as
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand )unction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines