|
time of the gas occurrence and the Oliver encounter would likely have been quickly
<br />ventilated to safe levels today..." [MCC Response to DMG Adequacy Letter dated October
<br />25, 1995, Permit Revision PR-06 (submitted 6/8/1995; approval proposed 1/26/96); response
<br />accepted by DMG as documented in DMG Adequacy Letter dated 11/20J95]
<br />24. , "On revised pages 2.05-104 and page 2.05-I 1, MCC discusses in passing the possibility of
<br />`fractures filled with water and methane (as reported in the Oliver No. 2 Mine)'
<br />interconnecting with the mine workings via the B-seam fracture zone. It is matter-of-factly
<br />stated and never addressed as a potential hazard to miners' of the public's health and safety,
<br />or the vitality of the environment. MCC should address this statement in greater detail. What
<br />would be the consequences for health and environment? How would the possibility be
<br />precluded? How would its possible occurrence be predicted, detected, and monitored? What
<br />mitigation remedial techniques would be applied in the event of an occurrence? In what time
<br />frame?" [DMG Adequacy Letter dated August 25, 1995, page 18; Permit Revision PR-06
<br />(submitted 6/8/95; approval proposed 1/26/96)]
<br />25. "The potential hazazd to miners from encountering fractures filled with water and/or methane
<br />reportedly was sever in the 1950's when such fractures were encountered in the Oliver No. 2
<br />Mine. However, as mining technology has advanced, the hazards have become much less
<br />severe. Twenty years later in the Somerset Mine, similar methane and/or water-filled
<br />fractures were encountered. Methane detector alarms warned mine personnel, the personnel
<br />were safely evacuated, if necessary, and the methane and/or water were ventilated of pumped
<br />so that mining could resume. As discussed in response to No. 18 in the Geology Section, if
<br />the same gas and/or water as was reportedly in the Oliver Mine were encountered today,
<br />another twenty years, later, it would be quickly ventilated and/or pumped to safe levels"
<br />[MCC Response, dated October 25, 1995, to DMG Adequacy Letter dated August 25, 1995,
<br />Permit Revision PR-06 (submitted 618195; approval proposed 112b/96); response accepted by
<br />DMG as documented in DMG Adequacy Letter dated 11/20/95]
<br />26. "Mountain Coal Company, L.L.C. (MCC) proposes to drill a maximum of three exploration
<br />holes in Sylvester Gulch to ascertain information about the Oliver No. Mine to assist us in
<br />our mine planning for the B-Seam in this azea...The goal of the drilling project is to drill into
<br />the Oliver No. 2 workings...MCC does not expect that it will be necessary to handle water on
<br />the surface from the workings." [MCC Cover Letter dated August 31, 1999 for Minor
<br />Revision MR-265 (submitted September 1, 1999; approved September 10, 1999)].
<br />CDMG Findings Documents
<br />27. "Subsidence in the area has been studied or observed at the Somerset Mine, the Hawk's Nest
<br />Mine, the Bear Mine, and hypotheses forwarded regarding the Oliver #2 Mine/Oliver No. 2
<br />Mine." ["June 22, 1981 Proposed Decision, ARCO Coal Company, Mt. Gunnison No. 1
<br />Mine", page 35; "West Elk Coal Company, Mt. Gunnison No. 1 Mine, Permit C-007-80,
<br />Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance for 320 Acre Permit Revision, June 14, 1985"
<br />(un-scanned; azchived), page 37; "West Elk Coal Company, Mt. Gunnison No. 1 Mine,
<br />Permit No. C-007-80, Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance For Permanent Waste
<br />Pile Permit Revision, June 17, 1985, page 39; "West Elk Coal Company, Mt. Gunnison No. 1
<br />
|