Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />�,� FAIRFIELD <br />1 gWOO DSPC. <br />Virginia Brannon, Division Director <br />October 28, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />information that the MW -NW will produce, the Owners will be forced to forego this potential <br />source of water for surface uses and will likely have to expend funds in drilling a well into a <br />deeper aquifer for such purposes. This is an unreasonable economic hardship for the Owners. <br />Risk. This factor is related to cost discussed above. Mitigation measures are available to <br />minimize the risk of drilling into abandoned mines where methane may be present but those <br />measures may be expensive. The Division concludes that the risk potentially present here has not <br />been quantified yet. It further concludes that the risk is `significant" (Division Determination, <br />p.3). This conclusion isn't reasonable on its face. The Division should be required to do more <br />than guess at the potential risk. Evidence will be introduced by the Owner at the hearing that <br />will (1) demonstrate the existence of drilling companies that would undertake the drilling and (2) <br />support conclusions from those companies as to the minimal risk drilling in the area presents if <br />using the right equipment. <br />Value. This is the crux of the decision to vacate the NOV. Cost and risk factors are pre -textual <br />for the Division's conclusion that the value of the data to be obtained from an operating MW - <br />NW monitoring site is outweighed by the cost and the risk of collecting it. In other words, after <br />requiring it as part of the water monitoring plan and issuing a NOV because the MW -NW was <br />inoperable, the Division now decides the data from the MW -NW isn't important because it may <br />be expensive to obtain. The data is, however, very important to the Owners because it provides <br />an understanding of the likelihood of resource availability for future surface use. The Division's <br />rationale for vacating the NOV is a house of cards that is resting on the fact that to comply with <br />the NOV, the Operator would have to spend money. If the cost card is removed as not being an <br />example of "good cause", then the house falls down. The Division's statement on page 4 of the <br />Division Determination suggesting that there are other ways of securing water quality and <br />quantity information is directly inapposite of the NOV findings just two years ago when the <br />NOV was originally issued. The only variable that changed in the interim is cost. The Owners <br />maintain the cost of complying with a NOV should not be "good cause" under the Regulations. <br />Please attach this supplement to the Original Appeal. We look forward to the hearing process. <br />