Laserfiche WebLink
137 <br /> 1 What we ask you to do is to deny TR-69 1 The only places water was delivered or <br /> 2 and to say, Go back out and reinvestigate this property 2 otherwise applied and from which any hydrologic <br /> 3 so that all of the parties can sit down and say, We 3 com unication could have propagated from was either <br /> 4 have damaged property; what is the best way to approach 4 from the Fontanari trench and/or the Carey Pond. <br /> 5 it; what is the most practical use of whatever irony 5 Snowcap is under no obligation to <br /> 6 Snowcap Coal has and whatever interest that the 6 otherwise address these structures or otherwise. This <br /> 7 landowners have? 7 is a situation of no good deed goes unpunished. <br /> 8 I can't cmpel you. I can't even file 8 Snowcap took on the repair in this to avoid and to <br /> 9 my own application on behalf of Mr. Fontanari. I can 9 ameliorate any concerns with respect to safety. <br /> 10 only rely upon what has been presented to you today, 10 There's no requirement that under the <br /> 11 and it's not sufficient. Snowcap should be required to 11 statute that Snowcap maintain or otherwise make these <br /> 12 do more, and they should have done more, but they dial 12 lands arable. What they are doing, though, is -- and <br /> 13 not. 13 they made coinitments to, is to investigate the <br /> 14 Therefore, our request is that you deny 14 specific hydrologic comet ication observed in 2014 as <br /> 15 TR-69 with conditions telling Snowcap and DRMS to go 15 documented in the 2014 Boulay report, and has done so. <br /> 16 back out in the field to do testing, and this time 16 It conducted multiple ERT surveys <br /> 17 please given us notice. We're not fighting you. We 17 encompassing the entire area where water was actually <br /> 18 wanted to cooperate with you, but nobody would give us 18 delivered to on either the Carey property or the <br /> 19 notice as to when you were testing. 19 Fontanari property. <br /> 20 And in that regard I also ask is that if 20 So to require them to look elsewhere for <br /> 21 you grant TR-69, you put into your -- you put into your 21 evidence of a hydrologic caninication where no water <br /> 22 order that they give us notice when they are going to 22 was provided, as is being suggested by opposing <br /> 23 go out and start this digging so that we observe and 23 counsel, would be the definition of arbitrary and <br /> 24 collect whatever evidence we feel is appropriate. 24 capricious. There is no evidence that hydrologic <br /> 25 Thank you. 25 cam uiication would otherwise exist on other locations <br /> 310 312 <br /> 1 Mr. Stutz. 1 or properties owned by Fontanari or Carey. <br /> 2 CLOSING STATMENT 2 The only location which there's any <br /> 3 MR. STUTZ: The track we're supposed to 3 evidence or any thought that there might be a <br /> 4 be on here, according to the prehearing order, is the 4 hydrologic cam unicati.on was in the areas investigated <br /> 5 adequacy of the testing procedures and the adequacy of 5 by Snowcap. Thus, they cccupleted that investigation, <br /> 6 the proposed plan. I think we've offered evidence that 6 and they have now proposed a repair plan to address the <br /> 7 the testing was inadequate and should have been 7 only anomalies identified in that investigation to <br /> 8 conducted across these properties to satisfy MR-82. So 8 prevent future hydrologic coma m;cation to the mine. <br /> 9 I think we've got a problem there. 9 Snowcap has gone above and beyond here <br /> 10 Fran that we go to the adequacy of the 10 to address this problem, and it has cxxpleted every <br /> 11 the proposed plan. All we're doing is plugging one 11 requirement both under MR-82 and by the statute and <br /> 12 hole. And also our position, we'd like to proceed on 12 rules to address this issue. <br /> 13 something other than the Whack-A-Mole approach. We'd 13 I've got nothing more. <br /> 14 like a canprehensive look at the property, proper 14 MR. SINGLETARY: Any questions? <br /> 15 testing, and the ability to cane up with a plan that 15 MR. ROBERTS: I just have a procedural <br /> 16 takes care of this so that we're not all living with i16 question. Let me pause your time real quick. I asked <br /> 17 this thing for years to cane. 17 you earlier if you could identify the exhibits you <br /> 18 Thank you. 18 offered or wish to offer into evidence so I can get the <br /> 19 CLOSING STATEMENT 19 numbers down. <br /> 20 MR. JUSTUS: All right. With respect to 120 MR. JUSTUS: Can I give you a written <br /> 21 TR-69, as you heard, it is the end point after a 21 summary of that? <br /> 22 process that began with SL-8. During that process, as ;22 MR. ROBERTS: You may. <br /> 23 the testimony talked about, a hydrologic communication 23 MR. BECNM: I have no objection to <br /> 24 was observed with respect to water moving from the 24 that caning later. <br /> 25 surface into the coal mines. 25 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I appreciate that. <br /> 311 313 <br />