My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE31440
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE31440
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:02 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:59:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981015
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/29/1991
Doc Name
TEN DAY NOTICE X-91-02-116-5 TV3 FRUITA 1 AND 2 MINES PN 79-60 FN C-81-015
From
MLRD
To
OSM
Violation No.
TD1991020116005TV3
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
r' - . <br />F • • <br />Mr. Robert Hagen -3- July 29, 1991 <br />surface coal mining operations". Based upon the previously referenced <br />definition of overburden, we contend that the material present at the Cameo <br />Seam bench is not "spoil". This contention was not disputed by the AFO. In <br />fact, the AFO response indicates that the material used to backfill the bench <br />is waste rock material, and the material comes from a waste pile located at <br />the bench area. We agree that underground waste rock has been deposited on <br />the surface at the Cameo Portal area; however, the rules, both State and <br />Federal, distinguish between waste rock and spoil. The waste rock has been <br />graded into the portal face-up area, and a final topography has been achieved <br />which approximates the premining and adjacent topography. Rule 4.14.1(2>(a> <br />specifically refers to highwalls, spoil piles and depressions, none of which <br />are present, based upon a strict and literal interpretation of both the State <br />and Federal rules. <br />Our interpretations are neither arbitrary nor capricious. Rather, our goal is <br />to ensure that any enforcement actions taken are proper. The provisions of <br />Rule 4.14.1(2)(a) are specific, and the terms contained in the rule are <br />clearly defined elsewhere in the State and Federal rules. We respectfully <br />contend that we cannot pursue an enforcement action based upon Rule <br />4.14.1(2)(a), because the specific requirements of the rule have not been <br />violated. <br />We hope that a favorable decision will be returned, based upon the information <br />provided above. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. <br />Sinc <br />~~~ ~ <br />Steve G. Renner <br />Coal Program Supervisor <br />SGR/gaw <br />cc: David Berry <br />Susan Morrison <br />7317E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.