My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE21612
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE21612
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:31:39 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:00:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981025
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
1/29/1981
Doc Name
SNOWMASS COAL CO NOV 80-41 80-42 AND 80-43
From
FRIEDMAN HILL & ROBBINS
To
MLRB
Violation No.
CV1980043
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br />• • <br />Mr. James Kent <br />January 26, 1981 <br />-2- <br />in making the "seriousness" assessment. Bob Liddle did <br />this, but Jim Herron did not, and I think it would make <br />the discussion flow better if it were clear to the company <br />and its representatives exactly which part of the regula- <br />tion, rather than general statements, was being relied upon. <br />Third, it would be most helpful to have a statement <br />from the staff as to whether or not it believes that <br />5.04.5(2)(d) is applicable to each instance. In that way, <br />the company will know whether the responsible staff reclama- <br />tion specialist considered any efforts to mitigate and <br />achieve compliance, or if those considerations were taken <br />into account in the other assessment phases. <br />At the time of the hearing, Jim Herron indicated that <br />the assesment for Notice of Violation 80-41 was in line with <br />all previous assessments. I would request that the previous <br />assessments and penalties paid for topsoil violations under <br />the MLRB statutes be made available to me for inspection. I <br />recognize that this is not a formal freedom of information <br />request, and if you require one, I would be happy to submit <br />one. However, it seems to me that in the course of negotia- <br />tion of these assessments, it is entirely appropriate to <br />provide me with the information that the staff reclamation <br />specialists relied upon in making their determinations. I am <br />amenable to either one of two approaches in conducting this <br />review: (1) you can send me copies with a bill for the cost <br />of reproduction for all of the penalty assessments that <br />involved topsoil violations; or (2) you can let me know when <br />it would be convenient to come up and review all of those. <br />We have had a generally good relationship with the <br />reclamation specialists of the Mined Land Reclamation staff <br />and appreciate their candor and professionalism in dealing <br />with the company's operations. We look forward to receipt <br />of your decision and will abide by the time frame as I <br />understand it. The time frame is that we have ten (10} days <br />from receipt of your proposed decision in which to review <br />the same and inform you whether we will accept the penalties <br />as assessed or wish proceed further. If we take the latter <br />course of action, you will formally assess the penalties, <br />and we have ten (10) days thereafter in which to file our <br />notice that we wish to have the matter heard by the Board as <br />a whole. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.