Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Michael B. Long <br />March 4, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />practice to resubmit the data from all previous subsidence monitoring surveys in each <br />subsidence monitoring report submitted to the Division. <br />Mountain Coal Company has complied with both the letter and spirit of the subsidence <br />monitoring regulations. Mountain Coal has conducted subsidence surveys <br />semiannually, and the Division has routinely reviewed the data generated by those <br />surveys and found them satisfactory. Mountain Coal acknowledges that it did not <br />submit a report on the 1992 surveys to the Division until January of 1993. Mountain <br />Coal employed a new surveyor for the June and October 1992 surveys, and the <br />original results of the surveys contained several significant errors. Some errors were <br />merely typographical, others resulted from an incorrect turning point in the survey. <br />Further review of past survey data revealed other inaccuracies. The Division was fully <br />informed of these problems, and the Division knew that it would take some time for <br />Mountain Coal to correct these errors. It was Mountain Coal's impression that the <br />Division recognized the need for accurate survey results and agreed to allow additional <br />time for Mountain Coal to provide corrected data to the Division. <br />Mountain Coal prides itself on its commitment to compliance. That commitment is <br />evidenced by the fact that the West Elk Mine has not received a NOV in nearly seven <br />years. It is further evidenced by the Mine's unwillingness to submit to the Division <br />inaccurate survey data simply to meet an artificial deadline. Mountain Coal objects to <br />the Division's use of its power to impose a Notice of Violation under these <br />circumstances. First, the alleged violation creates no environmental risk. In fact, <br />environmental protection is enhanced by the correction of inaccurate and misleading <br />information in the original surveys. Second, the Division was fully informed of <br />Mountain Coal's need to take more time to provide accurate survey results. Mountain <br />Coal has in no way attempted to conceal or misrepresent the results of its subsidence <br />monitoring program. Finally, Mountain Coal has acted in good faith reliance on the <br />Division's historic interpretation of the subsidence monitoring requirement. The data <br />from the 1992 surveys were presented in the same format and manner that the <br />Division has routinely accepted and indeed praised. <br />Mountain Coal Company has enjoyed a professional and cooperative working <br />relationship with the Division in the past. The Division will best serve the interests of <br />the public if it continues to assist Mountain Coal in its effort to comply with the law. <br />Issuing a Notice of Violation under the circumstances described above is both <br />unnecessary and unwarranted. <br />