Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t;:~ <br />~... <br />,. <br />,4;?:' <br />:-; <br />;:~;•. <br />t , i. <br />:~;~ <br />March 9, 1993 <br />NOV C-93-006 <br />Page 2 <br />,,,. ; <br />:Y ~` .. <br />a <br />~~•. <br />`v; <br />;r <br />'-r <br />air' <br />#; t. <br />y:,- <br />54~' <br />~.':;. <br />on the land surface. This is because many of the inspectors are <br />unfamiliar with the methodology regarding subsidence, and because <br />the on-site inspection is not the place to review the reports <br />because of the complexity involved. This information is submitted <br />to the Division in a report format, for these reasons. <br />procedures. <br />In addition to completing subsidence surveys, the results of the <br />monitoring program shall be submitted to the Division at least <br />semi-annually (2.05.6(6)(c)(i)(E)). By failing to submit the <br />reports for the period between October 1990 and January 1993 (three <br />reports), MCC has violated the "letter and spirit of the subsidence <br />monitoring regulations". The Division does not recall being <br />informed that new surveyors were hired to complete the 1992 <br />surveys. The Division was informed during the November 1992 <br />inspection, that the data were ready to be submitted, but it was <br />discovered that some of the numbers had been entered incorrectly. <br />It was portrayed by MCC that this problem was recently discovered <br />and when it was corrected, the report would be submitted. The <br />Division concurred that having correct data would be helpful in <br />reviewing the report. Regardless, it is the operators <br />responsibility to submit reports which are both accurate and <br />timely. Acquisition of faulty data does not serve as an excuse for <br />non timely submittals. In fact, MCC's acquisition of faulty data <br />further substantiates our decision to pursue enforcement <br />Mountain Coal Company has failed to justify the reasons why they <br />did not submit three subsidence reports; therefore, we believe the <br />violation should not be vacated. The information MCC provides to <br />the Division regarding its history of compliance and lack of <br />environmental risk should play a role in determining the amount of <br />civil penalty. It is our feeling that the abatement requirements <br />and deadlines are justified and are in no way "substantial" or <br />unreasonable. <br />Please let us know if you have any questions. <br />006.DAB <br />