Laserfiche WebLink
<br />November 6, 1991 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Rather than offer concrete evidence of specific violations of <br />applicable performance standards, the Objectors have generally <br />alleged that the MLRD's inspections and investigation did not <br />reveal "actual working conditions". This contention was not <br />supported by any evidence submitted by the Objectors and must be <br />rejected in its entirety. In addition to its regular unannounced <br />inspection procedures, the MLRD made a special effort in its <br />further investigation to assess the circumstances attendant to the <br />coal haulage without any notice to SMC. The evidence reflected <br />compliance with the applicable performance standards and fully <br />supported the MLRD's position in this matter. <br />In addition, the Objectors generally allege that the operation <br />results in unspecified adverse affects from blowing dust and <br />request that the abatement measures include requirements to <br />properly load and cover the coal haul trucks to prevent spillage <br />and potential dust problems. In making such an allegation the <br />Objectors have mischaracterized the NOV. As noted above, neither <br />the inspection nor the subsequent investigation identified <br />violations of performance standards relating to the control of <br />fugitive dust and accordingly such abatement requirements would <br />have no factual or regulatory basis. In fact, the MLRD <br />investigation as well as the video introduced by the Objectors <br />revealed SMC's compliance with the requirements of its Fugitive <br />