My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-04-06_REVISION - C1981041 (9)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981041
>
2017-04-06_REVISION - C1981041 (9)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2017 10:37:57 AM
Creation date
4/13/2017 10:17:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/6/2017
Doc Name
Pre-Hearing Statement of Snowcap Coal Company, Inc
From
Snowcap Coal Company, Inc
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR69
Email Name
JRS
JHB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
II. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE FORMAL HEARING <br />The scope of the Formal Hearing should be limited to whether SCC's TR -69 Application, <br />including its incorporated repair and remediation plan, is adequate, and whether it complies with <br />the requirements of MR -82. TR -69 should be approved because it is based on a technically sound <br />and valid geophysical investigation of the known hydrologic communication documented in the <br />Boulay Report, and it proposes a repair and reclamation plan sufficient to address that hydrologic <br />communication and any associated surface disturbances, as required by MR -82. Conversely, <br />Fontanari and Carey's Objections, and Fontanari's proposed reclamation plan, are unsupported <br />by any reliable technical investigation or analysis of hydrologic communication, unpersuasive, <br />and involve lands and demand investigations outside the scope of MR -82 and TR -69. Moreover, <br />the relief requested by Fontanari and Carey is beyond the MLRB's statutory authority in this <br />proceeding. <br />A. SCC Has Met All Required Deadlines Concerning Investigation of the Known <br />Hydrologic Communication and the Proposal of a Repair and Reclamation Plan. <br />Fontanari's Objections to TR -69, which have been adopted in whole by Carey, are based <br />on the mistaken premise that SCC has somehow failed to meet its obligations under the SL -8 <br />Proposed Decision. However, as discussed above, the commitments made by SCC in the <br />Attachment 16 Order, and incorporated into MR -82 and its associated timelines, are limited to <br />the investigation and remediation of the known hydrologic communication identified in the <br />Boulay Report. The Boulay Report documented Fontanari's actions, including the construction <br />of the "extension" and the wasteful diversion of water, which resulted in that hydrologic <br />communication, and which propagated discharges at the South Portal.. To address this known <br />hydrologic communication to the underground mine workings, DRMS prepared the Attachment <br />16 Order, which specifically references the Boulay Report, and applies only to the hydrologic <br />communication documented by that report. See Attachment 16 Order; see also SL -8 Proposed <br />Decision at p. 24-25, 31-33, 36, 38. Due to the MR -82 deadlines, SCC, as a practical matter, had <br />to focus on the known hydrologic communication documented by the Boulay Report. After <br />those investigations, it was determined that the known hydrologic communication was associated <br />with an air shaft located on Tract #71. <br />Therefore, the current investigation, which is the only issue for the Formal Hearing, <br />concerns only the hydrologic communication associated with Fontanari's delivery of the water to <br />specific defined locations on the Carey and Fontanari properties, i.e., Carey Pond and the <br />"extension" constructed by Fontanari in 2014, and the adequacy of SCC's proposal to address <br />the that hydrologic communication issue. <br />Broader investigation of potential hydrologic communication from the Affected Lands on <br />a specific timeline was not required by either the Attachment 16 Order or MR -82, and therefore <br />is not addressed by TR -69. Nonetheless, SCC has committed to conduct the investigation of <br />potential hydrologic communication from the Affected Lands, which include lands owned not <br />only by Carey and Fontanari, but also includes lands owned by Erickson, Hasstead, and the <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.