Laserfiche WebLink
~~ <br /> <br />d. Alleged Violation No. 4. SEI does <br />not maintain a mine permit and identification <br />sign at the McClane Canyon site because McClane <br />Canyon is an exploration operation. <br />e. Alleged Violation i4o. 5. At the <br />time of Inspector Ehmett's visit to McClane <br />Canyon, 5EI's routine maintenance and cleanup <br />activities included stabilization of the <br />sides of the diversion ditch. Contrary to <br />the language of Alleged Violation No. 5, piles <br />of coal were not deposited in the diversion <br />channel itself. Coaly material was in the <br />berm, but it was not in the diversion channel <br />itself. There is a natural coal outcrop in <br />the diversion channel and it is possible that <br />Inspector Ehmett thought the outcrop was piles <br />of coal. There has been no showing that there <br />was environmental harm at the time of Inspector <br />Ehmett's visit to McClane Canyon. <br />f. Alleged Violation No. 6. This <br />alleged violation applies to less than one- <br />tenth of an acre of material not suitable <br />for topsoiling (and therefore unsalvageable) <br />at the time that a parking pad was constructed <br />at the McClane Canyon site. This parking pad <br />was constructed in 1976, prior to the enact- <br />ment of the SMCRA. <br />SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR RELIEF <br />I. <br />A. SEI requests that the Administrative Law Judge <br />vacate Notice of Violation No. 79-V-1-12 in its entirety <br />(Alleged Violations Nos. 1-6) for the following reasons: <br />-6- <br />