Laserfiche WebLink
25 <br /> 1 applicable to this proceeding and that it should be i it doesn't refer to a statute. It is Title 34, <br /> 2 reflected to -- revised to reflect that this is a 2 Article 33; everything in the article, not just one <br /> 3 procedure subject to 116. 3 section. <br /> 4 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you for 4 So, therefore, we do object to that <br /> 5 that clarification. 5 change because we believe they have the burden of <br /> 6 MR. BECKWITH: May I respond? 6 proving that the reclamation meets the requirements <br /> 7 MR. ROBERTS: You may. 7 set upon this Board relative to what a mining <br /> 8 MR. BECKWITH: Okay. I agree with 8 operator must do. <br /> 9 what was stated here by Mr. Waldron. Mr. Fontanari 9 Thank you. <br /> 10 has no burden of proof in this proceeding. Burden 10 MR. ROBERTS: Does the Division have <br /> 11 of proof is upon Snowcap. Just as in any type of 11 anything to say about this, Scott? <br /> 12 other action, like criminal or otherwise, we have no 12 MR. SCHUPLZ: I do agree that <br /> 13 burden of proof as an objector. 13 34-33-116 is the specific provision on the technical <br /> 14 We object flat out, and this Board 14 revision of a permit as its titled. I just — I <br /> 15 does not have authority to order installation of 15 guess the only requirement then would be the burden <br /> 16 these plugs over our objection. So I think it is 16 of the -- the applicant would be the identification <br /> 17 appropriate that it is judged by 34-33-114, not by 17 of the permit, which would be 34-33-116(1) -- or <br /> 18 some other standard that would violate my client's 18 (2)(a), "identification of the permit by permit <br /> 19 rights. 19 number or other appropriate reference which is the <br /> 20 MR. ROBERTS: My understanding is 20 subject of the technical revision; a specific <br /> 21 that Mr. Justus's -- 21 ascription of the requested change in the terms of <br /> 22 MR. BECKWITH: I'm sorry? 22 the permit; and such other information as may be <br /> 23 MR. ROBERTS: My understanding is 23 necessary for the office to properly evaluate the <br /> 24 that Mr. Justus's recommendation to change the 24 technical revision." <br /> 25 prehearing order is to change the citation fran 25 I just see those as an issue of <br /> 25 27 <br /> 1 34-33-114 to 116 but the remainder of the paragraph 1 completeness, and I don't -- I have a difficult time <br /> 2 remains the sane. 2 understanding what the burden for the applicant <br /> 3 MR. JUSTUS: That's correct. 3 would be, whereas -- but I do agree that 34-33-114 <br /> 4 MR. ROBERTS: So the applicant 4 is specific to permit approval or denial. It talks <br /> 5 retains the burden. 5 about a revision or renewal, which is not what TR-69 <br /> 6 MR. BECKWITH: No. Because by 6 is. TR-69 is an application for a technical <br /> 7 changing it, you are changing any burden. What is 7 revision by the operator. <br /> 8 noted in here by the Board -- any denial by the 8 MR. ROBERTS: Would a technical <br /> 9 Board must be based upon the grounds provided in 9 revision be a revision as contemplated by 114(1), <br /> 10 34-33-114. And that statute, that applicant has to 10 though? I mean, the word "revision" is in both. <br /> 11 prove that the reclamation will maintain value or 11 Sounds like it would. <br /> 12 preserve prenining use of the surface land. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Sorry. Say that <br /> 13 And that is what Mr. Waldron has 13 again. <br /> 14 written. So by changing the citation, you are 14 MR. ROBERTS: It sounds like a <br /> 15 changing the burden of proof, and I don't believe 15 technical revision would be a revision embraced by <br /> 16 that there is a change in the burden of proof from 16 section 114(1). I think we're getting down a rabbit <br /> 17 114. 17 hole, what to cite in this paragraph. I'm just <br /> 18 116, the basic aspect of that statute 18 wondering if it makes sense to strike the last <br /> 19 is just to say a technical revision is a minor i19 sentence of that paragraph entirely just to avoid <br /> 20 matter. The question is, What is minor, and, of 20 the confusion about that 114 and 116. <br /> 21 course, there's no definition of that. So this 21 MR. SINGLETARY: We'll go to <br /> 22 Board must look and determine whether it's minor. 22 Mr. Justus and cane back to you. <br /> 23 But it doesn't say the applicant is 23 MR. BECKWITH: Thank you, sir. <br /> 24 no longer subject to the reclamation duties provided 24 MR. JUSTUS: Snowcap's argument is, <br /> 25 by the article. And when 114 refers to "article," 25 under 116 if the General Assembly had intended for <br /> 26 28 <br />