2012-07-24_REVISION - C1981012 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1981012
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 7/24/2012
• Doc Name: 2nd Adequacy Review
• From: DRMS
• To: New Elk Coal Company, LLC
• Type & Sequence: TR64
• Email Name: ZTT
• Email Name: DIH
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
COLORADO
Q I V I S I O N O F
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
July 24, 2012 John W. Hickenlooper
Governor
Ron Thompson Mike King
New Elk Coal Company, LLC Executive Director
122 West First Street
'Trinidad, CO 80182 Loretta E. Pineda
Director
Re: New Elk Mine (Permit No. C- 1981 -012)
Technical Revision No. 64 (TR -64)
Second Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The following includes the Division's preliminary review of the TR -64 application, NECC responses, and new Division
comments.
1. Please provide a blasting plan for the proposed technical revision in accordance with Rule 2.05.3(6)(a). While
the language of Rule 2.05.3(6)(a) suggests this blasting pertains to surface mines, Rule 2.05.3(6)(a) is directly
related to Rule 4.08 which has requirements that relate to underground mines as well.
NECC: An updated blasting plan was submitted with TR -58. Please refer to Exhibit 26.
DRMS: Response is sufficient.
2. It is our understanding that a future railroad track or tracks will be constructed from Trinidad to New Elk Mine
within the next 12 to 18 months. According to the maps with the proposed technical revision, it appears that the
future railroad track(s) will rum through the ventilation shaft and/or the containment. Is this a map error? If this
is not an error, how does NECC plan to address this with the future railroad track(s)?
NECC: The railroad tracks will be located north of the shaft and south of the contaimnent.
DRMS: Response is sufficient.
3. It is the Division's understanding that water collected in the containment area will be either pumped or hauled
to Pond 7. If the water is purnped from the containment area to Pond 7, will the required piping system be
permanent? If so, please provide an adjusted bond, permit pages and maps to account for the permanent piping.
NECC: Any piping installed would be buried for freeze protection so no additional bonding should be
required. The DRMS does not typically require a bond for underground pipe removal.
DRMS: The Division agrees that additional bonding would not be required for the underground pipe, but feels
that a letter from the legal or equitable landowner that would approve or authorize an underground pipe to
remain unreclaimed is needed.
4. Please provide a description on how the proposed ventilation shaft will be lined to minimize disturbance to the
prevailing hydrologic balance in accordance with Rule 4.07. The Division feels that shotcrete lining may not be
adequate enough for long -term protection and suggests that concrete lilting be used.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines