ENFORCE37648 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Steven Renner 2 DMG also referenced in its response subsidence control by two methods: limiting the amount of coal to be recovered and mining by the room and pillar method rather than longwall mining under the AVF to prevent subsidence. Pillar strength calculations were also conducted to validate the prediction that subsidence would not occur. In light of the above, AFO finds the DMG response to be appropriate with regard to this violation. However, AFO takes exception to the following statement from the DMG response, "Rule 2.05.6(6)(b) requires a description of the worst possible consequences which subsidence could have for structures and renewable resource lands, if subsidence were predicted to occur." The cited rule requires "... a description of the worst possible consequences which subsidence, if it occurred. could have for such structures and renewable resource lands" (emphasis added). Rule 2.05.6(6)(b)(i)(B) is the rule that requires a brief description of predicted subsidence phenomena. A description of worst possible subsidence consequences, if it occurred, may be substantially different then predicted subsidence phenomena. TDN 93-020-370-005, violation 2 of 3, was issued for failure to prevent or control adverse impacts on groundwater systems. AFO understands the DMG response to state that Mr. Tatum has been unable to answer a number of requests by DMG for information regarding completion, depth, historic water levels, historic productivity. Also, the well is not permitted with the State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources, and that DMG would proceed with an investigation if Mr. Tatum provides information relative to the well's pump, casing, or perforations. While AFO generally acknowledges the history of events DMG presents in the response, some statements should be clarified. Technical Revision No. 15 does address the drilling of the borehole, but does not address the potential impact on groundwater systems and the effect that might be caused on local wells. The 1984 Annual Hydrologic Report does not describe the well as "non-functional" but as "not functioning." Not functioning may very well mean that the windmill was not in operation on May 10, 1984, when the survey was conducted, especially in light of the fact that the term not functioning was followed by "not owned by WFC" (Wyoming Fuel Company). DMG concludes the response by stating that concerns brought forth in these TDN's do not warrant issuance of enforcement actions. That may or may not be the case with this particular violation; however, DMG has an obligation to conduct an investigation into the complaints. Mr. Tatum has met the criteria set forth to estab{ish sufficient basis to believe that a violation of the Act or rules has occurred. The first criterium is that the alleged facts, if true, would constitute a violation. If true, the alleged facts would constitute a violation of the rules cited in the TDN. The second criterium is that the complainant must state the basis upon