My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-11-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1993-11-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/31/2021 7:31:28 AM
Creation date
4/30/2012 8:58:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
11/30/1993
Doc Name
Case No. 93CAO297 Reply Brief
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
TSS in the effluent was 696 mg/l on January 17 , 6, 600 mg/l on <br /> January 26, and 5, 400 mg/1 on February 2, 1989 . (R. 67 , Vol . I ) . <br /> All samples show levels well above the 70 mg/l on a single day or <br /> the 35 mg/l on a thirty-day average effluent limitations for TSS <br /> imposed in the CDPS Permit . (R. 1073 , Vol . X) . Even assuming , as <br /> MCR alleges, that DMG ordered MCR to violate effluent limita- <br /> tions, DMG could not have caused the violations between January <br /> 17 and February 23, 1989, demonstrated by undisputed evidence in <br /> the record. <br /> MCR' s misrepresentation of the facts to support arguments <br /> not properly before this Court represents MCR' s efforts to once_ <br /> again avoid responsibility for its actions and to divert the <br /> Court ' s attention from the legitimate issues before this Court . <br /> This effort must be rejected. <br /> SUMMARY OF REPLY TO MCR' S ARGUMENTS <br /> CDH' s Opening Brief challenges the District Court ' s deci- <br /> sion because it ignores relevant and binding case and statutory <br /> law, it misapplies the case law it does rely upon, and results in <br /> the Court ' s interference, without proper basis , with the func- <br /> tions of an executive agency and with the legislative delegation <br /> of such functions to the agency. MCR' s Answer Brief recognizes <br /> the relevance of the statutory and case law ignored by the Dis- <br /> -4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.