2010-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - C1980007

Home Browse Search

When the definitions of the key words are applied in the cited regulation, it is clear that the regulation requires a wide-ranging representation (i.e. general description) of all lands to be influenced or changed (i.e. affected) - a description that includes maps, not just a map. It does not direct operators to provide a map with a mining limit or boundary within its permit boundary and then only map and describe the affected land and resources above those limited mined areas, as alleged in the NOV and in subsequent conversations and correspondence with Tom Kaldenbach and per Dan Hernandez. This misinterpretation is documented in the NOV allegation that there was a, "Failure to have maps or plans in the approved permit application that accurately show the land to be affected and the areal extent of the workings." It is further documented in the completeness letter for minor revision application #MR-365 (submitted and approved to "abate" this NOV) dated May 27, 2010 that states the,"... affected acres shown on the decision forms for PR-10 and PR-12 are significantly larger than the land area which is located above the underground workings as it is shown on the E-seam mine plan map (Map 51) that currently is in the permit..."; in section IV of the June 03, 2010 Coal Inspection Report for the West Elk which states that "CV- 2010-001 was issued May 14, 2010 for extending underground room-and-pillar workings beyond the area of underground workings shown on approved E-Seam mine plan, Map 51, in the permit application"; and in Section III.C. of the CDRMS Civil Penalty Worksheet that states, 'The operator neglected to obtain approval prior to changing the mine plan." In addition, an adequacy comment for TR-121 (submitted in part to reconstruct a road and drill methane drainage wells along it) dated June 10, 2010 states DRMS is researching the need to update the E-seam underground mine plan (Map E 51) prior to approving MDWs E3-75, 76, and 78 whose proposed bottomhole locations are outside the currently approved mine plan." The following TRA21 response was submitted by MCC on June 11th. `As we'd discussed after last month's mine site inspection and as recently approved per MR 365, MCC management has not made the decision to change the E-seam mine plan to extend the E3 longwall panel to the east and as such, the recently approved E-seam projected operations map (Map 51) is current and accurate. Although the three E3 exploratory entries have shown that coal of sufficient mining height exists to the east in these entries, mining of the E31E4 gateroad entries later this year needs to be completed to confirm that the minable coal height and condition is consistent with the height identified in the exploratory entries. Should this be confirmed, a revision application will be provided to locate the projected E3 longwall panel setup rooms further east. To reiterate, at this time, MCC does not have sufficient data to warrant a change of the E-seam projected operations plan shown on approved Map 51. As MCC's decision and revision to extend the E3 panel further to the east will not be until later this year, longwall mining of the panel would not begin until next spring and would be before MCC could access and drill the necessary MDWs needed for safe mining. To avoid this risk to the safety of our miners and business loss of having to delay the start of longwall mining in this panel until MDWs could be permitted and drilled next summer, MCC has had to assume that the panel will be extended and incur the costs of permitting, drilling and installing MDWs this summer. In addition, the data obtained from drilling these MDWs might also be of use in the decision on extending the panel." In the second TR-121 adequacy letter dated June 17, 2010, the Division said, "DRMS has completed its previously mentioned research and finds Mountain Coal Company's response to this comment is adequate." As shown above, and as alleged in this NOV, the Division has on multiple occasions stated or inferred that the surface projection of MCC's actual, projected or envisioned (i.e. anticipated) mining (or sequence of mining per this rule) as shown on a single