Comments and Responses
Technical Guidance Document
563-2000-610
Validating Abandoned Underground Mine Maps and Establishing Barrier Pillars
List of Commentators
1.) Mr. George Ellis, President
Pennsylvania Coal Association
212 North Third Street, Suite 102
Harrisburg, PA 17101
2.) Ms. Michal Jones-Stewart, P.G.
Pennsylvania Mining Professionals
EADS Group
15392 Route 322
Clarion, PA 16214-6266
Permit Information
1.
Comment: In Section 3(c) Permitting and Operational Mapping Requirements, the first
sentence states, "The permit application will include all information the applicant used to
accurately depict the full extent and location of adjacent abandoned mine workings."
Because this Technical Guidance Document deals with Abandoned Underground Mine
Maps as noted in the title, it is suggested, for consistency and clarity, adding the word
"underground" to the sentence. The sentence should read, "The permit application will
include all information the applicant used to accurately depict the full extent and location
of adjacent abandoned underground mine workings." (1)
Response: The guidance document provides the applicant with details on surveying
underground mines, mine map standards, and the establishment of safety barriers. When
establishing safety barriers, the Department evaluates abandoned auger mining and
surface mining operations as well as abandoned underground mines. The Department
feels that by inserting “underground” in the sentence, the applicant may be misled to
believe that the Department is only concerned about abandoned underground mines.
Map Availability
2.
Comment: In Section 3(f), applicants are required to provide to the Department all maps
utilized to create the permit application, if such maps do not exist within the Department's
mine map repository. Paragraph 119(b) of the Safety Laws of Pennsylvania for
Underground Bituminous Coal Mines, Act 55, requires the Department to return the maps
that do not exist within the Department's Mine Map repository to its owners within 30
days. Paragraph 119(b) of the Act needs to be included in this section of the guidance
document. (1)
Response: The Department agrees with the commentators. Section 3.f) has been
amended as follows:
“Map Availability: Under Section 119 of the Mine Safety Act, the Department is
authorized and directed to obtain and copy all maps of mining in the Commonwealth.
The Applicant shall provide to the Department all such maps utilized to create the
permit application if such maps do not exist within the Department’s mine map
repository. The Department will return the original maps to the Applicant within 30
days, unless the Applicant expressly allows the Department to keep the maps or hold
them for a longer period of time.”
Permit Application Review Meetings
3.
Comment: In Section 4(a), the words “when requested” were added to the beginning of
the paragraph. It is unclear as to whether this request is to be made by the Applicant or
by the Department. (1)
Response: It is the applicant’s option to request a pre-application meeting. To clarify
the paragraph, the sentence will be revised to read:
“At the request of the applicant, appropriate BMS technical and inspection staff will
attend all pre-application meetings held prior to the submission of an application for a
new underground mine, and/or a revision to add acreage to an existing underground
mine.”
Application Review Procedure Coordination
4.
Comment: Section 4.b) Application Review Procedure Coordination, paragraph 3 adds
"and participate in the review prior to completion of the safety review" to the end of the
second sentence. In addition, Section 4(b), paragraph 4 deletes the 30-day response
requirement from the Bureau of Mine Safety (BMS) to provide written comments on the
application and subsequent related submittals to the District Mining Office (DMO).
There is concern that both of these sections as written will extend the lengthy time it
takes to get a permit application approved. (1)
Response: The changes in paragraph 3 are intended to improve the efficiency of the
application review process. The original guidance required the supervisor and DMI
district mine inspector to meet with the applicant and the lead permit reviewer from the
district mining office. The initial meetings were held and follow-up meetings were
needed because of changes in information obtained during the BMS review. In order to
improve the efficiency of the department, the supervisor and DMI are involved in the
meeting after all of the applicant’s changes have been received. This change has reduced
the number of meetings required prior to BMS issuing a written response to DMO.
The commentator also states, “…both of these sections as written will add to the already
lengthy time it takes to get a permit application approved…” These changes are meant to
reduce the number of internal meetings and to ensure that complete information regarding
“credible evidence” has been provided and is reviewed by all appropriate staff prior to
making a decision regarding the consistency and completeness of the “credible evidence”
provided. These changes have not eliminated the requirement for BMS to provide DMO
a written response in regards to their review. The overarching requirement to ensure
appropriate safety barriers are established has at times, created conflicts with the
requirement to provide a response to DMO in 30 days. BMS has worked closely with the
applicants when this situation occurs.
Adjacent Abandoned Mining Accurately Determined
5.
Comment: Industry understands the need to reference the appropriate sections of the
Bituminous Coal Safety Act. However, there are concerns that Section 5(a) “Adjacent
Abandoned Mining Accurately Determined” as written fails to distinguish between a
final certified map and one merely drawn on a piece of paper, and arbitrarily lengthens
the minimum distance against which mining adjacent to an abandoned mine can occur. If
the mine is dry and no hazard or water head pressure exists, we believe 200 feet is
adequate safety protection. If the mine is flooded or there is a major hazard, for example
800 feet of head, we concur that the distance should be greater. We note that the
Department still has the ability under the 2009 Bituminous Coal Mine Safety Act,
Paragraph 275 to increase the barriers if needed, but to start at a minimum of 500 feet
causes an operator to lose 300 feet of coal unnecessarily and with no improvement in
safety. (1,2)
Response: The guidance was modified to reflect the specific changes in requirements
between the 1961 Bituminous Coal Mine Act and the 2009 Bituminous Coal Mine Safety
Act. Section 214 requires operators to maintain a 500 feet safety barrier. The permit
review for “credible evidence” takes into account all of the information provided,
including the mine maps to establish an appropriate safety barrier.
Section 214 establishes the minimum barrier of 500 feet for abandoned workings of the
same mine that cannot be inspected, and may contain a dangerous accumulation or water
or gas. Both of these changes are reflected in this guidance.
Mine Map Survey Standards
6.
Comment: Section 7. “Mine Map Survey Standards” of the guidance document
indicates that elevation closures shall be +/- 1.0 foot per 5,000 feet. We suggest that
elevation closures in low coal seams are higher than in high coal seams because the
number of measurements increases. We believe that +/- 0.3 feet per 1,000 feet is a
practical minimum elevation closure, which would be equivalent to +/- 1.5 feet per 5000
feet for lower coal seam mines. (1)
Response: The Department does not agree with this proposed change. Section 224
(b)(1) (Accuracy Standards) of the Safety Laws of Pennsylvania for Underground
Bituminous Coal Mines (Act 55) does not make a distinction between low and high coal
seams and requires a minimum elevation closure of +/- 1.0 foot per 5,000 feet or an
equivalent of +/- 0.2 feet per 1,000 feet . The proposed change would not comply with
the requirements of the Act.