Laserfiche WebLink
it is not the sole purpose. The language of the Act does not identify any specific and <br />identifiable harm to public health and safety that may result from inadequate reclamation <br />of mine sites per se. <br />In the absence of per se harm from inadequate reclamation of mine sites, it <br />is necessary to determine whether there are any identifiable conditions at the Quarry that <br />present an imminent danger to public health and safety. The narrow exception to <br />abandonment pronounced in Midlannc requires the bankruptry court to determine whether <br />there is an identifiable harm, and if so whether the risk from the harm is so imminent as to <br />endanger public health and safety. In re Doyle Lumber, Inc., 137 B.R. 197, 202 (Bankr. W.D. <br />Va. 1992), cirinG In re FCX, Inc., 96 B.R. 49, 54 (Ban1o. E.D.N.C. 1989)(crucial <br />determination by bankruptry court, not the state, is immediate danger to public health and <br />safety). In examining the role of the banlwptry court in light of the Midlannc exception, <br />the court in Smith-Douglass, concluded that "(t]he bankruptry court, ...must determine <br />whether the risk of imminent harm exists in reference to the design of the state law or <br />regulation alleged to have been violated." 856 F.2d. at 16. <br />Colorado isolated certain conditions at the Quarry that it believes constitute <br />identifiable harms to the public. Those conditions, however, do not represent an imminent <br />threat to public health and safety. The evidence did not establish that toxic substances were <br />ever used or stored at the Quarry. The only hazard on the property that will not be <br />remedied by the reclamation plan is the genera] presence of unconsolidated and unstable <br />rock. The lack of migrating hazardous or toxic substances distinguishes this case from the <br />prior decisions that interpreted the Midlantic exception. Unlike the situations in prior <br /> <br />