Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mountain Coal Company also makes the argument that subsidence data are routinely <br />reviewed in the field, as part of the records check. This argument is not relevant to the <br />violation. The issue is submittal of the reports to the Division, not whether data exist. Even <br />if we decide to consider this argument, only one inspection report specifically references <br />subsidence reporting, and that inspection report (10/22191} states "the following records were <br />examined: 6/4/91 subsidence survey notes, Sept/Oct subsidence survey being done by Schaff <br />& Assoc.". This in no way indicates that the content of the notes were reviewed, nor does <br />the comment indicate that the 6/91 notes were in fmal form. In fact, the inspection report <br />documents that the 10/91 report was not yet complete. <br />We believe the violation is proper, as was verified by Mathews' fmding. If we must proceed <br />to the Board, we will do so with confidence. Please do not vacate this violation. Thank you <br />for your consideration. <br />cc: Christine Johnston <br />Dan Mathews <br />Attachment <br />.d:1OSS\SCG\VIOI.AT.v11i iv^ <br />