Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Rindahl: <br />Brown <br />Rindahl: <br />-26- • <br />Seneca amendment and that the Nucla would be heard within a <br />relatively short, I believe it was five days later and it was <br />heard within five days later and during that time the Nucla mine <br />was shut down. <br />I think the point that is interesting here, Lynn, is that <br />there was evidence of mining in violation at Nucla at the time, <br />earlier <br />which under the discussion we're having/ here today would not <br />have allowed Peabody to be granted the Seneca. permit. <br />Because they were currently in violation. <br />That's right. <br />Obernyer: I think it's certainly obvious that if an operator is mining that <br />he is in:Yiolation, the, my point to Mr. Brown is that 120 does not <br />state that one has to be mining to be currently found to be in <br />violation. <br />Brown: Okay. I don't know how else he could be found to be in violation <br />of this. If you're not mining you're not breaking the law, I <br />don't think. <br />Obernyer: To have previously mined an area without a permit and to not have a <br />bond and reclamation plan approved by the Board on those lands. <br />Ward: Joe? <br />Sullivan: Lynn, I would like to pose this question for you. As I understand <br />