ENFORCE25480 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,1 two reports for 1991 and the first report for 1992 were apparently not submitted at all. Ms. Johns~n concluded her presentation by noting the extent to which subsidence issues had been a significant concern at the mine since it was originally permitted in the early 1980's, and the importance of current survey reports being readily available to the Division staff during permit reviews and in the event of subsidence related emergencies. At this point, Scot Anderson stated that MCC had on various occasions hand delivered subsidence reports to MLR personnel during their mine site inspections, and thus MCC had met the semi-annual reporting requirement although they had no supporting documentation. Kathy Welt explained that the semi-annual report utilized a spreadsheet format which was updated semi-annually to include the most recent survey data. As a result, Ms. Welt does not keep a file of past semi-annual reports at the mine, she merely keeps the most recently updated version which contains all previously reported data. If reports were hand delivered to inspectors rather than mailed to the Division, there would be no record of the submittal at the mine office. MCC provided a notarized affidavit signed by Ms. Welt testifying that during the period in question MCC performed subsidence monitoring surveys twice a year, that Division personnel reviewed the subsidence data during routine inspections, and that during the relevant period she occasionally provided copies of the semi-annual monitoring reports to inspectors from the Division. Ms. Welt did not recall the particular individuals to whom she had hand delivered the reports. Ms. Johnsen, who has been the lead specialist for the West Elk Mine since January, 1992 does not recall having any subsidence reports hand delivered to her at the mine site. There is no record of reports for 1991 or the first semi-annual report for 1992 in the public files of the Division, the lead specialist's files, or in the files of Jim Pendleton who would most likely have been asked to review the reports if submitted. At this point Mr. Anderson brought up the point that due to some apparent oversight which occurred during permit updates, the permit did not specifically require semi-annual report submittal during 1992. He acknowledged, however, that the semi-annual reporting was still a regulatory requirement. MCC was apparently aware of the continuing report requirement and was not under the impression that because of the permit update oversight they were no longer required to submit semi-annual reports. Fact of Violation I believe a preponderance of evidence indicates that semi-annual subsidence reports were not submitted to the Division in 1991 or the first half of 1992, and that the NOV was appropriately issued. In the case of the first half report for 1992, I believe that had the report been delivered to Ms. Johns`~n in the field she would have remembered it, and had the report been delivered to another