_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (132)

Home Browse Search

reclamation has occurred. They submitted the attached memo explaining the reclamation schedule as set forth in the May, 1991 Settlement Agreement as compared with work done in the 1993 construction season. Although, they have not completed all that is required by the end of 1993, they have made considerable. They have taken advantage of the extended seasons at the lower elevations, and moved forward with future projects. It is their contention that MCR is contemporaneously reclaiming the mine site. Several questions enter my mind. First, I question why we're discussing any NOV's for an unpermitted mine where the bond has been forfeited. Second, what takes precedence, the Act, the Rules or the Board Order? The Act citations, 34-33-120(2) and 121(2) , are very broad including all the performance standards for surface and underground operations. The Division did not present a case for violating all of the performance standards, only for violating Rule 4.13, Contemporaneous Reclamation. This rule states in part, "Reclamation efforts, . shall occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations". I feel MCR made a strong case for contemporaneous reclamation given the fact that they are in bankruptcy. Reclamation of roads was also cited, but the roads cannot be reclaimed until their use is not longer needed for other reclamation activities. Without a doubt MCR is not in compliance with the May, 1991 Board Order -and reclamation -schedule. MCR was -out of compliance with the Board Order when they revoked the permit in August, 1992. MCR never made a showing of its capability to proceed with reclamation. This was to be provided in January, 1992. Instead of making the required showing MCR thought they had a buyer for the mine and evidently the Board decided not to enforce this requirement. I think it is an important step because the schedule could have been adjusted to accommodate the constraints of the Bankruptcy court and structural contractors. When asked why the schedule was not amended I was told that the Division refused to amend the schedule. No one at the conference could explain why not, although it was suggested that there was an inability to comply due to MCR's bankruptcy. I considered whether or not the bankruptcy created an inability to comply. I concluded that it has delayed the reclamation progress, but not stopped it. Given all the obstacles to be overcome I believe MCR has made considerable progress in the reclamation of the Coal Basin Mines. Even if they were not bankrupt the required work could not have been completed in 1992. MCR did not want to begin reclamation if indeed the mine was to be sold. 4