ENFORCE35313

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 6/11/1993
• Doc Name: FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING MEMO
• From: DMG
• To: MLRB
• Violation No.: CV1993006
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

•
C~
STATE OF COLOI~>,~~0
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1311 Sherman St., Roam 215
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX:[phone]
DATE: March 9, 1993
TO: Steven Renner
FROM: Christine Johnst n ~
David Berry
RE: Mountain Coal Company; NOV C-93-006
oe cod,
( , ~.
\i~ '
.~•r/
~e~ti F
2or Fon,er
Governor
Michael B. Lung
Dn~nion Dvrc mr
The following are our comments regarding Mountain Coal Company's
letter to Mike Long, requesting that NOV C-93-006 be vacated. Our
comments strictly regard the facts and statements put forth in the
above-referenced letter.
The Division does not question the fact that MCC was completing
their subsidence surveys. The violation was written for failure to
submit semi-annual subsidence reports on a semi-annual basis, not
for not. doing the surveys. The Division is aware that surveys were
performed on a semi-annual basis.
Every quarter the Division must perform a complete inspection at
the site, which includes reviewing all records, including
subsidence surveys. The topic, Subsidence, which is noted on page
2 of the Division's inspection report is broad in scope, and can
range from inspecting the monuments and looking at subsidence
cracks, to reviewing subsidence data or reports. MCC mentions
that inspection reports specifically mention subsidence nine times
in the period between October 1990 and January 1, 1993. In my
review of these inspection reports, mention of subsidence data
occurred in only four of the inspection reports. In each of these
cases, only subsidence data, not reports were examined. In my
review of the inspection report of October 22, 1991, specifically
mentioned in MCC's letter, it states that during the records review
the inspector noted, "6-4-91-Subsidence Survey Notes, and
Sept/Oct-Subsidence Survey being done by Schaff & Associates." The
inspection report does not state any satisfaction with the notes or
current survey. Inspection report references to subsidence on June
3, 1992, September 15, 1992, and November 18, 1992 indicate the
presence of data, but made no finding regarding its adequacy or
status of final reporting.
During inspections, the Division typically checks that the company
is performing the subsidence surveys. However we do not review
these data to make any conclusions regarding the effects of mining
I