2017-04-06_REVISION - C1981041 (10)

Home Browse Search

Rationale for Proposed Decision to Approve TR -69 April 6, 2017 Page 3 of 9 The Division inspected the site on a weekly basis for the remainder of June and July of 2014 to ensure no water flow to the Carey Pond and ditches and no indication of imminent danger from the South Portal backfill blowing out and impacting the Kokopelli Produce stand or Interstate -70, located approximately 800 feet below the toe of the South portal backfill. Division management contacted local authorities in the Grand Junction area to notify them of the potential for the portal area failing and causing damage. By August 2014 the discharge from the portal was diminishing. In their September 22, 2014, inspection of the site the Division documented that the South Portal backfill was in good condition and there was no visible flow/seepage coming from the south slope of the portal backfill. The flow in the French drain ditch was minimal. Ultimately, the Division issued a Proposed Decision to approve Bond Release Application SL -08 on October 8, 2015. The Proposed Decision became final and was issued on November 14, 2015. The requirement to investigate the hydrologic communication between surface lands and underground mining workings, along with the newly constructed irrigation ditch on Mr. Fontanari's property were included in the SL -08 Findings document and was partially satisfied by Minor Revision 82. Minor Revision 82 was received on December 7, 2015, and approved by the Division on December 21, 2015, in which language was added to the permit application committing SCC to conducting an investigation of the hydrologic communication. This hydrologic communication investigation was completed as required by SCC, with J.E. Stover & Associates sending a report to the Division on April 28, 2016, and on September 28, 2016 SCC submitted Technical Revision 69. Technical Revision 69 (TR -69) was the second submittal intending to satisfy the commitment to investigate hydrologic communication in SL -08. TR -69 was received by the Division on September 28, 2016, and deemed complete on October 7, 2016. TR -69 included reports from Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC (HBET) regarding the potential hydrologic communication. It was HBET's opinion that the hydrologic communication that was witnessed on the site was the result of an improperly reclaimed air shaft. The sole intention of TR -69 is a repair and reclamation plan of this air shaft. The Division sent out an adequacy letter on November 4, 2016. SCC, through its consultant J.E. Stover & Associates, responded to the adequacy reviews on December 6, 2016 (received by the Division on December 9, 2016). On October 27, 2016, the Division received a "Response to the Subsidence Damage and Repair Plan" from Mr. James A. Beckwith on behalf of Mr. Rudolph Fontanari, Jr. and Ethel Carol Fontanari. Beckwith's "Response to the Subsidence Damage and Repair Plan" pointed out numerous perceived deficiencies in SCC's proposed repair plan and proposed an "alternate repair plan." The Division reviewed Beckwith's "Response to the Subsidence Damage and Repair Plan but does not believe that it contained any information that was relevant to the vent shaft repair and reclamation plan submitted by SCC in TR -69. It should be noted that the Division does not review and consider any mining or reclamation plans submitted by third parties. The Division only reviews those plans submitted by operators. On October 27, 2016, the Division also received a comment letter from Mr. Gregory Stutz on behalf of Mr. Jason Carey. Mr. Stutz's letter mirrored the concerns of Mr. Beckwith's letter. On January 30, 2017 the Division proposed a decision to approve TR -69. On February 16, 2017, the Division received objections to the Proposed Decision and requests for a hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board.