My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-10-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1993-10-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2021 1:25:29 PM
Creation date
4/30/2012 8:58:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
10/28/1993
Doc Name
Case No. 93 CA 297 Plaintiff-Appellees Anser 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.
/
54
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
The representatives of both agencies met to discuss the Coal Basin episode. <br />On examination, Sandy Marek, WQCD representative, testified that in February, 1989, <br />she attended a meeting between MLRD and WQCD representatives in which the <br />episode was discussed (2 Tr. Marek, 61 - 62): <br />Q. Did you have any contact with Mr. Stevens [MLRD representative] <br />during the course of all of the 016 stuff in January and February? <br />A. Yes, I did. <br />Q. And what was that? Was it personal conferences, telephone <br />conferences, correspondence, what type of contact are we talking about? <br />A. Well, in February there was a meeting between Mined Land <br />representatives. including Jim Stevensf.1 and Water Quality and myself <br />included at Mined Land Reclamation where the episode that was occurring <br />at Coal Basin was discussed. <br />Q. Yes. <br />Q. Okay. . . . Were there any other discussions, telephone <br />conversations, correspondence between MLRD and Water Quality Control? <br />A. And myself directly? <br />A. Could I say it's likely that there was a phone conversation or two <br />prior to issuance of the notices of violation? I can't say specifically that is <br />the case. We were in contact with Mined Land from the onset of our <br />becoming aware of the problem. <br />Q. Was Mined Land keeping you advised of what they were doing? <br />A. Yes. they were. <br />Q. And did Mined Land make you or someone in Water Quality aware <br />of the fact that they were going to issue a notice of violation? <br />A. Yes. The Division was aware of that. I was aware of that. <br />[Emphasis supplied.] <br />In addition to such cooperation between the agencies, both pursued Mid - <br />Continent under the same thesis, namely, that Mid - Continent failed to properly <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 21 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.