2011-12-06_REVISION - C1981012

• Permit No: C1981012
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 12/6/2011
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review
• From: DRMS
• To: New Elk Coal Company, LLC
• Type & Sequence: TR61
• Email Name: ZTT
• 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 IV IS I ON OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
RE: New Elk Mine, Permit C- 1981 -012, TR -61
Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Thompson
The Division has completed a preliminary review of the TR -60 application and has the following
comments.
1. Please provide an updated Map 11 -Sheet 1, Map 11 -Sheet 2 and Map 11 -Sheet 3 removing
Slurry Wells 2 and 3 as approved by MR -102.
2. Please provide an updated Map 11 -Sheet 1, Map 11 -Sheet 2 and Map 11 -Sheet 3 removing the
RWDA expansion proposed in TR -60. From discussions with Jim Stover, the RWDA expansion
proposed in TR -60 is subject to change and has yet to be approved by the Division.
3. At the south end of the proposed SAE, please explain the drainage pattern, especially in regard
to the natural channel and the railroad bed. Are these features included in the proposed SAE?
4. Please provide a larger scaled map to better define the drainage patterns within and adjacent to
the proposed SAE.
5. Please provide an explanation for why a berm is required along the north side of the proposed
SAE when an embankment at this location already exists for Pond 007A.
6. It is unclear what happens with the drainage in the area west of the proposed SAE and east of
ditch D24. Does this area drain to the ditch or should the SAE be extended to the west to include
this area?
7. Regarding.the SEDCAD input, please provide an explanation for the use of the input value of 10
gpm per square foot. This value is at the high end of the range of values recommend in the
SEDCAD 4 Design Manual and User's Guide.
8. Regarding the SEDCAD output, the peak concentration of the treated runoff is reported as 1.00
rriL /L. However, 0.5 mL /L is the daily maximum effluent limitation for a 10 -year, 24 -hour event
in the CDPS permit for New Elk Mine. Please provide one of the following:
• Explanation as to why this exceedance is acceptable,
• a revised SEDCAD demonstration, or
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines
John W. Hickenlooper
Governor
December 6, 2011
Mike King
Executive Director
Ron Thompson
Loretta E. Pineda
New Elk Coal Company, LLC
Director
122 W. First Street
Trinidad, CO 81082
RE: New Elk Mine, Permit C- 1981 -012, TR -61
Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Thompson
The Division has completed a preliminary review of the TR -60 application and has the following
comments.
1. Please provide an updated Map 11 -Sheet 1, Map 11 -Sheet 2 and Map 11 -Sheet 3 removing
Slurry Wells 2 and 3 as approved by MR -102.
2. Please provide an updated Map 11 -Sheet 1, Map 11 -Sheet 2 and Map 11 -Sheet 3 removing the
RWDA expansion proposed in TR -60. From discussions with Jim Stover, the RWDA expansion
proposed in TR -60 is subject to change and has yet to be approved by the Division.
3. At the south end of the proposed SAE, please explain the drainage pattern, especially in regard
to the natural channel and the railroad bed. Are these features included in the proposed SAE?
4. Please provide a larger scaled map to better define the drainage patterns within and adjacent to
the proposed SAE.
5. Please provide an explanation for why a berm is required along the north side of the proposed
SAE when an embankment at this location already exists for Pond 007A.
6. It is unclear what happens with the drainage in the area west of the proposed SAE and east of
ditch D24. Does this area drain to the ditch or should the SAE be extended to the west to include
this area?
7. Regarding.the SEDCAD input, please provide an explanation for the use of the input value of 10
gpm per square foot. This value is at the high end of the range of values recommend in the
SEDCAD 4 Design Manual and User's Guide.
8. Regarding the SEDCAD output, the peak concentration of the treated runoff is reported as 1.00
rriL /L. However, 0.5 mL /L is the daily maximum effluent limitation for a 10 -year, 24 -hour event
in the CDPS permit for New Elk Mine. Please provide one of the following:
• Explanation as to why this exceedance is acceptable,
• a revised SEDCAD demonstration, or
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines