My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE25967
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE25967
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:06 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:10:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005071
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/20/2006
Doc Name
Board Order
From
MLRB
To
Benson Bros.
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.
/
4
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
2. At a formal Boazd hearing held on May 10, 2006, the Board approved the Applicant's <br />Section 112 Reclamation Permit application, over objections. The Board placed the <br />following condition on the permit approval: <br />At the commencement of commercial operations at the project site <br />(following site preparation activities). Benson Brothers shall <br />conduct ground vibration monitoring for those activities that have <br />the potential to cause ground vibrations. Such ground vibration <br />monitoring at the project site shall continue for 30 days unless <br />monitoring shows vibrations that could result in offsite damages, <br />Monitoring will be conducted according to a plan submitted by the <br />Applicant within 30 days of the Board hearing. The monitoring <br />plan must be approved by the Division, and all costs for the <br />monitoring plan are the responsibility of the Applicant. <br />The Applicant now seeks clarification of the Boazd order regazding the requirement that <br />it conduct ground vibration monitoring for 30 continuous days. The Applicant asserts <br />that the condition does not convey the intent of the parties in negotiating the condition. <br />The Applicant also asserts that such monitoring over a 30-day period is not productive <br />and that it results in needless equipment rental expense. The Division testified that the <br />condition reads correctly, but that it does not convey the terms agreed to by the parties <br />during the hearing. Ms. Croissant, a party objector to the original proceeding and a party <br />to this matter, testified that the condition properly reflects her understanding. <br />4. The Boazd noted that the condition requires the Applicant to submit a monitoring plan to <br />the Division for its approval. Because the Boazd's monitoring condition correctly reflects <br />the testimony at the May 2006 hearing and is otherwise subject to the approval of the <br />Division, it is not appropriate for the Board to clarify the condition placed on the permit. <br />ORDER <br />Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Boazd hereby denies the <br />Applicant's request for clazification of the Board order in this matter. <br />Request for Clarification <br />Benson Bros., M-2005-071 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.