Laserfiche WebLink
133 <br /> 1 And the application has met the 1 the identical photograph. <br /> 2 burden -- the applicant has met its burden to establish 2 Our contention is that there were <br /> 3 that their application is in cmpliance with all the 3 inadequate methods to comply with MR-82. MR-82 is <br /> 4 requirements of the act. It's also accurate and 4 where Snowcap committed itself to inspecting, <br /> 5 contains all of the information required under the act 5 reporting, and making repairs of hydrologic connections <br /> 6 and rules, and all of these requirements have been 6 existing on lands owned by Rudy Fontanari and Jason <br /> 7 complied with, and they have demonstrated that 7 Carey. <br /> 8 reclamation required by the act can be accamplished 8 MR-82 does not identify any particular <br /> 9 under the reclamation plan. 9 sinkhole. It does not identify any particular tract <br /> 10 So, I mean, really to sum up here. Two j10 owned by Mr. Fontanari, and Mr. Carey only had one <br /> 11 Fugro studies concluded the source of hydrologic 11 relevant tract anyway. <br /> 12 communication that was seen on that June 11 112 In doing so, they went out, they dial an <br /> 13 inspection -- June 11, 2014, inspection as an historic 13 inspection, and by the time they're doing the <br /> 14 vent shaft. The studies were reviewed by HBET and 14 inspection, they have more sinkholes than were involved <br /> 15 Snowcap. The operator will repair all surface 15 in June of 2014. Now they have four. <br /> 16 disturbances as well as the hydrologic communication 16 They don't investigate them. They don't <br /> 17 observed. 17 dump water down them. They don't run -- they don't ask <br /> 18 The act, the rules, the Fugro studies 18 for irrigation water to be flooding the land to <br /> 19 all support Snowcap's application for TR-69. So today 19 saturate it in order to have high conductivity so that <br /> 20 the Division is asking you -- or requesting of you to 20 they can determine whether tyre are any other <br /> 21 make a final decision to approve Snowcap's TR-69 21 sinkholes. As a consequence, the basis for TR-69 is <br /> 22 application to repair the points of known hydrologic 22 flawed. <br /> 23 communication. 23 Mr. Chairman, you have mentioned that <br /> 24 Again, if there are any other questions 24 you feel your obligation is to get all the information <br /> 25 from the Board, I would be happy to answer those. 25 you possibly can to make the wisest and most practical <br /> 306 308 <br /> 1 MR. SINGLETARY: Mr. Randall, any 1 decision. That, of course, has to be done within the <br /> 2 questions? 2 scope of a formal hearing, rules of evidence and <br /> 3 MR. RANDALL: No. 3 everything else, and having to deal with technical <br /> 4 MR. SINGLETARY: Okay. Thank you. 4 objections that I may make to John and John may make to <br /> 5 MR. STARK: Thank you. 5 me or Scott may make. <br /> 6 MR. BECEWITH: That's right. It's me. 6 What is important is why did not that <br /> 7 CLOSING STATEMENT 7 same attitude extend to Fugro? Fugro was given one <br /> 8 MR. BECKWITH: In many respects -- well, 8 specific location to test dictated by Mr. Berry, who <br /> 9 first of all, may the record reflect in many respects 9 made that conclusion before he ever examined anything <br /> to I've already given you a summation of what has been to from an ERT inspection. <br /> 11 presented to you. There are a number of pieces of 11 He told them to investigate the air <br /> 12 evidence. There's a number of pieces of documents that 12 ventilation shaft because, as he testified, his working <br /> 13 you -- we'd request that you review -- you have already 13 hypothesis was it could only occur by a man-made <br /> 14 reviewed. 14 pathway. Nothing by nature at all, even though all of <br /> 15 For example, Figure 3, there's been a 15 us have not disputed there are collapsed coal caverns <br /> 16 lot of discussion relative to where this water was 16 underneath this property in various location. <br /> 17 dumped. I ask that you look at Figure 3 from the April 17 If you grant this TR-69, then you and I <br /> 18 16th -- April 2016 and July 2016 Fugro reports. They j18 are going to became very farrLiar with each other over <br /> i9 are very, very specific, and they also show photographs 19 the next few years because the position that you put <br /> 20 of where the water was dumped. 20 the landowner in is that six months fran now if another <br /> 21 If the water being dumped down the rock 121 sinkhole canes up and water goes down that sinkhole in <br /> 22 pile was so important, why dial Fugro never make a i22 one fashion or another, if Snowcap reasonably applies <br /> 23 photograph of where the water was dumped? Fugro 23 for another technical revision, we're back here all <br /> 24 instead said, Here it is; this is the air ventilation 24 over again. Why should we have been put in that <br /> 25 shaft, and both in April and August of 2016 they used 25 position? <br /> 307 309 <br />