2010-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - C1980007

Home Browse Search

The term "known" in this regulation (and in Section 34-33-110(2)(0) of the Act where "...the location and extent of known workings of any underground mines...") has apparently been disregarded by the CDRMS in the application and enforcement of this regulation as evidenced by the inclusion of this rule in this alleged violation. This rule has been misconstrued to mean that an operator must include its own workings on the map. MCC has complied with this rule by providing Map 4 - "Coal Ownership and Leasehold Map" and Map 5 - "Other Active, Inactive, or Abandoned Underground Mines". All proved and completely understood (i.e. known) mines within and adjacent to MCC's permit area are shown on these maps. As MCC's projected, future workings are not known it is not possible to provide them on a map. MCC also does not believe the intent of the information required by this rule is to expect an operator to constantly and continuously provide a mining progress map showing active or sealed workings of its existing mine. In nearly 30 years of operation MCC has never been required to submit maps of it own current underground workings, nor show and prove that its workings were within a projected area shown on a map. We have spoken to other operators in the state and except for one, none have had to provide their own, current workings on maps to seek compliance with this rule. One operation (also permitted and inspected by Tom Kaldenbach) has only recently (within the past two years) been required to submit regular mine workings progress maps and has had its active mine workings map viewed during inspections. Just as with MCC, in more than two decades, this operation had never before been required to regularly submit mine workings maps nor has it been inspected to prove that its mining was within its mining projections (all within its permit boundary) shown on a map. MCC believes that the Division's "new" interpretation is incorrect. ? "4.20.1(3) - Subsidence Control - At the time of revision to a permit, or for permit renewal, to the extent not previously submitted, the operator shall submit a detailed plan of the underground workings. The plan shall include maps and descriptions*, as appropriate, of significant features of the underqround mine, including the size, configuration, and approximate* location of pillars and entries, extraction ratios, measures taken to prevent or minimize subsidence and related damage, areas of full extraction, and other information requested by the Division for good cause shown. Upon request of the operator, information submitted with the detailed plan may be held confidential, in accordance with Rule 2.07.5(1)(b)." *approximate = to come near or close in degree, nature, quality or other characteristics; inexact, estimated. MCC has included substantial information on the planned mining in its descriptions of estimated (Le approximate) locations of planned pillars and entries, as well as the measures planned to be taken to minimize subsidence and related damage per this rule. These discussions are contained in Section 2.05.6 of MCC's permit document and remain valid and unchanged even with the three exploratory development entries. As stated above, these stand-alone developed entries (i.e. not part of a longwall panel) have been designed to remain stable and viable (i.e. will not crush or subside) and as such do not and will not cause any impacts or effects to the surface resources within or outside the permit area (within which all potential affects have been ,projected and analyzed.) As in the regulations discussed above, the plan of underground workings includes both maps and representations (i.e. descriptions) and even with the exploratory development entries present no change to the information presented and approved in MCC's permit document (a.k.a. mining and reclamation plan or (per OSM) "mine plan" document.) s