My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL32785
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL32785
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:55:08 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:26:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
5/13/1992
Doc Name
APRIL 25 PETITION BY DR W D CORLEY
From
ARNOLD & PORTER
To
MLRD
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
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
<br />A RNOLD 8c PORTER <br />Ms. Catherine W. Begej <br />May 6, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />performed by Harrison Western, would not have consti- <br />tuted coal exploration, and did not cause substantial <br />disturbance, it could not have violated Rule 4.21. <br />Likewise, assuming that Harrison Western <br />converted a "diversion ditch into an access road" as al- <br />leged, such work was presumably performed at the direc- <br />tion of the Division. It is difficult to understand how <br />work performed at the Division's direction could be <br />deemed a regulatory violation or, indeed, what regula- <br />tion it would have violated. The regulation referenced <br />by Dr. Corley, Rule 4.05.3(c), does not exist; Rule <br />4.05.3(1)(c), to which he is perhaps referring, simply <br />provides that certain types of diversions must comply <br />with "applicable local, State and Federal statutes and <br />regulations." <br />Third, Harrison Western is concerned that the <br />petition may have been filed for harassment purposes. <br />As noted above, the petition mischaracterizes my <br />statements and asserts spurious accusations against <br />Harrison Western. Nor, to Harrison Western's knowledge, <br />did Dr. Corley express concern over the work in question <br />at the time it was performed. Although Dr. Corley now <br />asks that Harrison Western perform further reclamation <br />work, he indicated at the Board's last meeting that he <br />might not provide Harrison Western with any access to <br />the site for reclamation purposes. At the Board's last <br />meeting, Dr. Corley repeatedly expressed his displeasure <br />with the Harrison Western compliance agreement; the <br />current petition is evidently his method of retaliation. <br />Under these circumstances, Harrison Western <br />respectfully requests that, if the Board considers Dr. <br />Corley's petition, Harrison Western be allowed to inter- <br />vene, and that the Board also determine whether Dr. <br />Corley filed the petition for harassment purposes. <br />Harrison Western intends to defend its rights in this <br />matter, including its right to seek its costs, expenses, <br />and attorneys fees from Dr. Corley under Rule 5.03.6 if <br />his petition is denied. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.