2017-04-06_REVISION - C1981041 (10)

Home Browse Search

Rationale for Proposed Decision to Approve TR -69 April 6, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Timely Letters of Objection: 1) Mr. James A. Beckwith on behalf of Mr. Rudolph Fontanari, Jr. and Ethel Carol Fontanari, dated February 16, 2017. 2) Mr. Gregory Stutz on behalf of Mr. Jason Carey, dated February 16, 2017. Issues Raised by the Objecting Parties In TR -69 the Division's jurisdiction and authority is limited to the specific requirements contained within the Act and Rules. The Division considered all timely submitted comments in its review, but will address only the issues that directly relate to the specific requirements of the Technical Revision Application. It is also important to note that Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) states that a request for a hearing "shall contain a brief and plain statement of facts which indicate the requestor may be adversely affected, and briefly summarize the issues to be raised by the requestor at the hearing." The issues raised by the objecting parties are represented by italic bold font. The Division's response follows in standard font. 1. All factual issues raised, discussed and identified by Fontanari in its Comments to Report of Investigation and its Response to Snowcap Repair Plan, and its alternative Fontanari Repair Plan previously filed with and received by DRMS. Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) states that a request for a hearing "shall contain a brief and plain statement of facts which indicate the requestor may be adversely affected, and briefly summarize the issues to be raised by the requestor at the hearing." 2. Whether the ERT procedures employed by Fugro Consultants in April and August 2016, produced results that were reliable and consistent as to the presence and location of sub -surface anomalies in Fontanari Tract #71. The Fugro study was specifically conducted in the area of the known hydrologic communication that was observed in 2014 and was the intent of the commitment made by SCC in SL -08. The Division believes that the results of their electrical resistivity testing and the plan submitted by SCC will help to minimize the hydrologic communication. 3. Whether the testing procedures (including dumping of gallons of water) employed by Snowcap Coal in April and August of 2016, established the absence of a hydrologic connection between the ferret ditch sinkhole, the air ventilation shaft, and horizontal sub -surface anomalies present in Fontanari Tract #71. The Division based their Proposed Decision in part on the Fugro study submitted by SCC and HBET. The electrical resistivity testing and subsequent report helped to establish a hydrologic communication between the surface and mine in the location of a previously reclaimed vent shaft. The Division agrees that this previously reclaimed vent shaft is a likely cause of the communication and agrees with SCC's proposed reclamation plan.