Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Stipulation No. 5 resulted from the approval of Technical Revision No. 9 on June 20, 1994. <br />Stipulation No. 5 required that; <br />A. By July 22, 1994, provide an explanation why sufficient topsoil was not <br />salvaged to replace to I S-inch depth. <br />B. By July 22, 1994, provide a demonstration that 1 l inches of topsoil exists on <br />reclaimed azeas. <br />The operator did not meet the conditions or the time-frames of Stipulation No. 5. This, in <br />effect, reversed the approval of TR-09 and thus, TR-09 was denied on October 13, 1994. <br />With the denial of [he Technical revision, Stipulation No. 5, which was generated by TR-09, <br />was subsequently terminated on October 14, 1995. <br />The active stipulations to the permit as a result of Permit Renewal No. 2 (RN-Ol) or those <br />which continue to be active as a result of previous permitting actions are as follows: <br />Stipulation No. 6 <br />RIMROCK COAL COMPANY, LANDMARK RECLAMATION, INC., OR OTHER <br />PERSONS RESPONSIBLE, SHALL PAY WTI'HIN 90 DAYS OF NOTIFICATION <br />BY THE DIVISION THAT STIPULATION NO. 7 HAS BEEN TERMINATED, ALL <br />OUTSTANDING CIVIL PENALTIES IDENTIFIED IN THE OFFICE OF SURFACE <br />MINING APPLICANT VIOLATOR SYSTEM. IN LIEU OF PAYMENT, A <br />DEMONSTRATION SATISFYING THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA THAT <br />LANDMARK RECLAMATION, INC. AND RIMROCK COAL COMPANY ARE <br />NOT LINKED TO THE ENTITY IN OKLAHOMA RESPONSIBLE FOR <br />PAYMENT, OR DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OF THE MINES IN OKLAHOMA AT <br />THE TIME THE VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED, WOULD ALSO BE ADEQUATE. <br />Stipulation No. 6 has been attached to the permit as a result of this permit renewal (RN-O1). <br />Information was submitted to the State of Oklahoma by the operator on July ] 1, 1995 which <br />attempted to establish that Mr. Richard Randall did not have control of the operations in <br />Oklahoma at the time the Cessation Orders were issued. The State of Oklahoma determined <br />that information supplied was insufficient to confirm that Mr. Randall had severed control by <br />the date in question. The State of Oklahoma has yet to resolve this matter. <br />Stipulation No. 7: <br />THE PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE <br />OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL RULES CHALLENGE BEFORE THE D.C. <br />CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. ON JANUARY 31, 1997, THE COURT OF <br />APPEALS RENDERED A DECISION UNFAVORABLE TO OSM'S OWNERSHIP <br />10 <br />