Laserfiche WebLink
21 <br /> 1 request for leave to file a motion. 1 MR. SINGLETARY: Anything additional? <br /> 2 MS. UITERBACK-NORMANN: I'll 1 2 MR. BE7CMITH: Not from Fontanari. <br /> 3 second. 3 MR. SINGLETARY: Mr. Justus? <br /> 4 MR. SINGLETARY: It's been moved and 4 MR. JUSTUS: Members of the Board, on <br /> 5 seconded. All those in favor of the motion signify 5 behalf of Snowcap, I'd like to raise an issue on <br /> 6 by saying aye. 6 page 3. This is a matter pursuant to a technical <br /> 7 (All Board members were in favor of 7 revision under subsection 116 of the Coal Mining <br /> 8 the motion.) 8 Reclamation Act. This is not a revision to the <br /> 9 MR. SINGLETARY: Those opposed, no. 9 permit or otherwise. <br /> 10 (No response from the Board members.) to Section 32-33-114, however, is <br /> 11 MR. SINGLETARY: Motion passes. 11 applicable only to certain statutorily defined <br /> 12 Mr. Randall? 12 provisions, and those include revisions but not <br /> 13 MR. RANDALL: Just a point of order. 13 technical revisions. So it is my comment that the <br /> 14 I need to step out for a meeting across the street 14 burden must be -- basically the last paragraph of <br /> 15 at 11:30. I have reviewed the material. So the 15 paragraph 3 misstates the statute as requiring <br /> 16 fact that I'll miss some of the testimony I don't 16 coruliance with 114. <br /> 17 think should preclude me from participating further 17 This is not a matter -- and I can <br /> 18 on. I should be back around noon. 18 find the statutory cite for you that constitutes one <br /> 19 MR. SINGLETARY: All right. 19 of the types of procedures subject to section 114. <br /> 20 (Board Member Randall left the Ito Those are limited to permit applications, permit <br /> 21 hearing roan.) �11 reclamation plans, revisions, or renewal thereof as <br /> 22 MR. ROBERTS: All right. So anything 22 required by the article. <br /> 23 further of a preliminary nature that we need to 23 Renewal or revision is defined in the <br /> 24 address? Operator, objector, Division? 24 statute. Technical revisions are separately defined <br /> 25 MR. BECKWITH: Only the prehearing 125 and controlled by section 116. It is Snowcap's <br /> 21 23 <br /> 1 order. 1 position, the Board has greater latitude in <br /> 2 MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. I'll get to 2 reviewing a technical revision then it does imposing <br /> 3 that. I'm going to get to that next. So we have 3 all the requirements of section 114. <br /> 4 a -- Mr. Chair, we have a draft prehearing order as 4 A technical revision is supposed to <br /> 5 the next item, and on page 11 of that, the Board 5 be a minor revision to the permit. That is what the <br /> 6 shall consider the draft prehearing order and can 6 application in this case is, and it should go <br /> 7 hear any objections or suggestions fron the parties 7 forward on that basis without having to meet the <br /> 8 to amend the prehearing order. That's the next step 8 march higher standards set forth in section 114. <br /> 9 in our prehearing order, suggestions for 9 MS. VAN NOORD: So are you asking <br /> to modifications. 10 that the prehearing order be amended to reference <br /> 11 MR. SINGLETARY: Are there any 11 34-33-116? <br /> 12 suggestions for modification? Yes, sir. 12 MR. JUSTUS: Yes. <br /> 13 MR. BECFWITH: Yes. On behalf of 13 MR. ROBERTS: Just to follow on. And <br /> 14 Mr. Fontanari, James Beckwith. On page 2, there are 14 then the burden, you're suggesting, would be the <br /> 15 two corrections that I have. First -- excuse me. 15 objectors' today? Are you suggesting the burden <br /> 16 One correction. 16 shift or that your client -- <br /> 17 Mr. Waldron correctly described the 17 MR. JUSTUS: What I'm suggesting is <br /> 18 filing of the report of investigation. He also 18 that there's statutory requirements set forth in <br /> 19 correctly described the filing of the repair plan 19 section 114, which are numerous, and they are all <br /> 20 and the Fontanari-filed cmnemts and objections. 20 applicable to when an applicant seeks a renewal or <br /> 21 He does not state, however, that we 21 revision to its permit. That is not the kind of <br /> 22 also filed convents and objections to the report of 22 procedure we are in today. <br /> 23 investigation, and if we are going to have a full 23 We are in a much more expedited <br /> 24 record in this prehearing order, that should be 24 procedure, and it's Snowcap's position that none of <br /> 25 noted in the prehearing order. 25 those -- or at least that provision is not <br /> 22 24 <br />