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
United States Bureau of Land Management. See SL -8 Proposed Decision at 31, 33, 34, 37-38. <br />The SL -8 Proposed Decision does not set forth any timeline or deadlines for completion of that <br />investigation, nor was SCC required to complete that investigation as part of the commitments <br />incorporated into MR -82. As such, SCC has not yet completed that investigation. SCC <br />recognizes that under the terms of the SL -8 Proposed Decision it cannot obtain a release of bond <br />monies associated with the approved reduction in reclamation liability determined by the SL -8 <br />Proposed Decision until it completes its investigation of the Affected Lands regarding potential <br />hydrologic communication affecting Outfall 16. In fact, the TR -69 Proposed Decision increases <br />SCC's liability. The TR -69 Proposed Decision is also consistent with the terms of the SL -8 <br />Proposed Decision, as no release of bond monies under SCC's performance bond is proposed. <br />Rather, the TR -69 Proposed Decision reflects that the performance bond held by DRMS remains <br />$726,161.20 in excess of SCC's current liability under the Permit. <br />The limited scope of SCC's obligations under the Attachment 16 Order and MR -82, and <br />whether TR -69 addresses those obligations, are the only issues to be resolved at the Formal <br />Hearing. The much broader issues identified in Fontanari and Carey's Objections, which involve <br />SCC and DRMS's alleged failure to investigate hydrologic communication beyond the known <br />hydrologic communication identified in the Boulay Report are simply not relevant at the Formal <br />Hearing and should excluded or disregarded. <br />B. Supporting Expert Technological Analysis <br />Fontanari and Carey's Objections insinuate that the conclusions drawn by SCC's experts, <br />Fugro Consultants, Inc. ("Fugro"), Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC ("HBET"), <br />and J.E. Stover & Associates ("Stover") in making their investigations and developing the TR -69 <br />repair and reclamations plan are unreliable. Fontanari argues that the ERT testing procedures <br />used by Fugro are unreliable, and suggests that HBET's "grout plug" reclamation and repair plan <br />is not supported by "sound science and engineering principles." Fontanari Objections, pp. 10, <br />11. Fontanari further indicates that he will be injured in various ways by implementation of <br />SCC's proposed plan. Id. at 11-12. <br />Notably, however, Fontanari's Comments to Repair Plan and Submission of the <br />Fontanari Plan, incorporated into the Fontanari Objections by reference, did not contain any <br />expert or other technological analysis contradicting Stover, Fugro and HBET's findings with <br />respect to the hydrologic communication identified in the Boulay Report. See pp. 3-10. Instead, <br />Fontanari's legal counsel argued that SCC's proposed repair plan was defective — an opinion he <br />clearly is not qualified to make. In its place, Fontanari proposes a different repair plan, which <br />similarly is not based on any geophysical investigation and assessment of hydrologic <br />communication. <br />Competent evidence to be presented by SCC at the MLRB Formal Hearing will show that <br />SCC's investigation, repair, and reclamation plan adequately addresses the hydrologic <br />communication issue required by MR -82, and are supported by sound geophysical investigations <br />and engineering. <br />'Al <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.