Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment <br />Mountain Coal Company / West Elk Mine <br />Violation No. CV-2020-001 (Issued November 17, 2020) <br />Date of Proposed Assessment: December 14, 2020 <br />Material reviewed: DRMS CV-2020-001 document, DRMS October 23, 2020 Inspection Report, Section 2.05.6 <br />of the C-1980-007 permit application package, Mountain Coal Company's response to NOV CV-2020-001 <br />received on December 2, 2020. Coal Program Director Jim Stark requested a Proposed Penalty Assessment on <br />November 17, 2020. <br />Rule 5.04.5(3)(a) — History of Previous Violations <br />No notice of violations have been issued within one year of the issuance date for CV-2020-001. A cessation <br />order (CO-2020-001) was served to Mountain Coal Company, LLC (MCC) on June 18, 2020 and was <br />subsequently modified on September 17, 2020. The cessation order was issued independent of a notice of <br />violation. Therefore no penalty will be assessed for this provision. <br />Penalty assessed: $0 <br />Rule 5.04.5(3)(b) — Seriousness <br />Due to insufficient subsidence predictions and projected overburden thickness included in the permit application <br />package, subsidence was not properly controlled during development mining under South Prong Creek where <br />overburden depth was shallow. As a result, water from the creek flowed into the mine workings. The duration <br />of impact lasted from the afternoon of Monday, October 13, 2020 to the following morning. Stream flow was <br />reported to have been successfully diverted around the subsidence hole by the morning of Tuesday, October 14, <br />2020. MCC asserts flows from the stream into the mine occurred for about eight hours and that no material <br />disruption of the hydrologic balance occurred. <br />The probability of the occurrence of the event which a violated standard is designed to prevent is higher in this <br />instance due to the shallow nature of the overburden at the location of the incident. However the duration of <br />water loss from the creek was short and the extent of the potential and actual damage in terms of area and <br />impact on the public environment was small. <br />Penalty assessed: $500.00 <br />Rule 5.04.5(3)(c) — Fault <br />This violation was a result of negligence given the lack of diligence and reasonable care to predict and control <br />subsidence in a manner protective of South Prong Creek given the shallow depth of the overburden where the <br />impact occurred. <br />Penalty assessed: $500.00 <br />