Laserfiche WebLink
,_ : iii iiiiiiiiiiiu iii <br />• BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD ~ , <br />STATE OF COLORADO ,r <br />°~....:cLi 12;~U" <br />File No. C-84-065 R~C;~^i~:'.^,; :.,...,gin <br />STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION <br />In re NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION, PERMIT REVISION No. 1 <br />New Castle Energy Corporation (hereinafter referred to as <br />NCEC), by and through its attorney, David R. Sturges, and <br />pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Order to Continue Hearing issued <br />by the Board on November 16, 1990, submits its statement of <br />issues to be considered by the Board on appeal, the relief <br />requested, and the factual and legal grounds for such relief as <br />follows: <br />I. Exclusion of Lacv railroad load-out from proposed <br />decision. <br />• The Division's proposed decision indicates (on pages 1, 3, <br />26, 28, 30, 31 and 32) that NCEC's proposed non-adjacent railroad <br />load-out (at Lacy, Colorado) could not be included in this <br />proposed decision because its location (by legal description) was <br />not contained in the newspaper public notice of the availability <br />of a complete application on April 5, 1990 as allegedly required <br />by Rule 2.07.3 (2). It is undisputed that the April 5, 1990 <br />public notice did not include any legal description of a non- <br />adjacent railroad load-out although several options were noted in <br />the permit revision but none were specifically proposed. The <br />Lacy load-out was not included in these options. The Lacy load- <br />out was first publicly acknowledged by NCEC in its formal Special <br />Use Permit proposal to Garfield County on June 14, 1990, then in <br />its public statements at the informal conference on June 21, <br />1990, and then in newspaper reports on NCEC proposals before the <br />City Council of Glenwood Springs in July and before the Garfield <br />County Planning and Zoning Commission in July and August. The <br />Lacy load-out was formally identified to the Division in its <br />August 6, and September 12, 1990 adequacy responses. No <br />indication whatsoever was given verbally or in writing to NCEC by <br />the Division that this load-out had to be the subject of a <br />separate revision and public notice. The Division's position on <br />this matter was first communicated by telephone to NCEC's counsel <br />on September 27, 1990 and apparently reflected the Division's <br />position as contained in its letter and response to OSM dated <br />• , <br />