Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />did not justify issuance of said NOV. The Hotchkiss Coal Yard is <br />owned and controlled by Arlie Clark Construction Company which party <br />is not a party to this proceeding. <br />5. Petitioner alleges that the actions of the inspector in <br />issuing said NOV were arbitrary and capricious, without authority in <br />fact or law and exceeded his authority. <br />6. Petitioner further alleges that the material concerning <br />which the NOV was written is not "underground development waste" as <br />alleged by Respondent nor is it otherwise "waste" within the meaning <br />of the Act nor any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto <br />nor any term or condition contained in any permit issued pursuant <br />thereto and, therefore, the material is beyond the jurisdiction of <br />Respondent. <br />7. Petitioner alleges that all right, title and interest in <br />and to such material has been conveyed to a third party (Arlie Clark <br />Construction Company) pursuant to a bona fide commercial transaction <br />and, therefore, it is impossible for Petitioner to comply with the <br />remedial action demanded by Respondent without committing civil and <br />criminal trespass to land and chattles as well as conversion. <br />8. By instrument dated May 23, 1984 said NOV was modified in <br />a fashion which continues to characterize the material as "under- <br />ground development waste" and continues to require material pre- <br />viously deposited at the Hotchkiss Coal Yard to be removed by <br />Petitioner. A copy of said modification is attached hereto and <br />incorporated by reference herein. <br />9. By instrument dated May 25, 1984 said NOV was further <br />modified at Petitioner's request to extend the abatement date to <br />- 2- <br />