ENFORCE24827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CON90LIOA'IION COAL W . 7 CK 94-6-A ragtsested a state iaapection of the Applicant's mine because he did eat agree with the rsalamatioa of the property. IDMM conducted ea inspection on E~ay 2, 1991. One oP Lynch'p concerns was the large ditch (A-1) located on thq west aide o! the permit. On May 9, 1991, ID2®! notified Lynch that the problem would require further raviex. During the pendency of this investigation, Coneolidatioa submitted an npplicatioa far Permit No. 25B, which proposed to comsbiae exiatiag Permit Nos. 69, 121. and 149 into o~ae permit. A publio henriag concerning this ' proposed permit was held 1(arah 26, 1991, sad Lynch participated in that meeting. Oa February 4, 1993, Lynch submitted a citisea'e complaint to OSM'a Springfield, Illinois, office. Lynch alleged that Coneolidatioa had constructed a diversion of as intermittent stream (Ditch A-1) which had caused eigailicaat change in she contour and land use. OSffi responded to this complaint by Perwarding it to IDMDt and establishing a dea8liae of March 5, 1993, for IDMM's response. The March 5th letter Pry ID?II4 to Lynch, reported that Coneolidatioa was in coa~lianae with applicable regulations and its approved permit and•tbat enforcement action wan not neceaeary. Altar receiving thin State response, Lynch contacted OSH. Oa June B, 1993, OSM issued a 'leis-Day Notice (TDN) to IDhAi, stating that it bad rsaeoa.to believe that Consolidation had failed to achieve the approprmate original contour (AOC) on the western parcel of the ICadolph property. On June li, 1993, IDMM responded to the TDN, but OSM deemed its reepoass inappropriate. Oa November 23, 1993, 086 Sssued NOv No. 93-050-101-001 to the Applicant for several violations at its Burning Star $2 Mine. The oaiy violation at issue hero is violation two of three, which wan written for failure to achieve appro=imata original eonteur oa the western parcel of~the Radolph property, epeoifically the combination of Ditch A-1 with the spoil plaaesnaat that resulted is slopes that do not achieve AOC. Oa Deoesaber 6, 1993, Coneolidatioa filed its Applicatiea for 8eview of and for Temporary Aeiiel.irosa violation number 2 of 'the NOV. Consolidation contended that OSFI violated 30 C.F.R. 5 643.12(a)(4) beoaua• IDDO?S had taken appropriate action or had. good cause far failure to take aotioa is response to the TDL. Consolidation alsc alleged that its mining operations complied with state >piainQ regulations and that 0374's iasuanca of the N0Y had been as arbitrary act. On January 4, 1994, the IDMt[ filed its Petition to Intervene and was granted amicua status. Ths hearing oa both applications wan hold February 15 and 16, 1994, in Bpring#ield, Illinois.