Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale for Proposed Decision to Approve TR -69 <br />April 6, 2017 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />4. Whether, in August, 2016, Snowcap agents dumped 2,000 gallons of water down the air <br />ventilation shaft or down some other, unrelated hole in the ground on Fontanari Tract #71. <br />The Fugro and HBET reports state that water was poured in the location of the vent shaft and the "rock <br />pile", which is several hundred feet away from the vent shaft (topographically up gradient). The vent <br />shaft is in the location of the communication. <br />5. Whether there exist on Fontanari Tract #71 surface subsidence depressions, and, if so, whether <br />those depressions are related to the collapse of room and pillar caverns in the South Portal <br />Mine. <br />The Division does not disagree that there may be subsidence on Tract #71. However, Tract #71 does not <br />have any regulated structures that were damaged and it is not a renewable resource. Pursuant to Rules <br />2.05.6(6) and 4.20, mine operators are only required to remediate subsidence damage to structures and <br />renewable resources. Further, this comment is outside the scope of TR -69. <br />6. Whether there exist surface subsidence depressions, sinkholes and subsurface damages on <br />Fontanari lands other than Tract #71 and, if so, whether those depressions are related to the <br />collapse of room and pillar caverns in the South Portal Mine. <br />The Division does not disagree that there may be subsidence on lands other than Tract #71. However, <br />Tract #71 does not have any regulated structures that were damaged and it is not a renewable resource. <br />Pursuant to Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20, mine operators are only required to remediate subsidence damage <br />to structures and renewable resources. Further, this comment is outside the scope of TR -69. <br />7. Whether Snowcap Coal Company had actual or inquiry knowledge of surface and subsurface <br />subsidence conditions on Fontanari lands other than Tract #71 and, if so, the reasons, if any, <br />why Snowcap Coal Company refused to investigate, report and propose repair of the same. <br />Pursuant to Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20, mine operators are only required to remediate subsidence damage <br />to structures and renewable resources. Further, pursuant to Rule 4.20.1(1) there is no prohibition to the <br />standard methods of room and pillar mining. Further, this comment is outside the scope of TR -69. <br />8. Whether Snowcap Coal Company's refusal to repair other subsidence damages on Fontanari <br />tracts other than Tract #71 was knowing, willful and deliberate. <br />The Division does not disagree that there may be subsidence on lands other than Tract #71. However, <br />Tract #71 does not have any regulated structures that were damaged and it is not a renewable resource. <br />Pursuant to Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20, mine operators are only required to remediate subsidence damage <br />to structures and renewable resources. The Division does not believe that there has been a "refusal to <br />repair other subsidence damage". Further, this comment is outside the scope of TR -69 <br />9. WhetherDRMS personnel know or reasonably sh o uld have known after <br />inspection, of subsidence damage, both surface and sub -surface, on Fontanari land tracts other <br />than Tract #71 and the reasons, if any, why DRMS has refused to enforce against Snowcap Coal <br />Company for the December 21, 2015, "Commitments" as a condition of Permit C-1981-041. <br />