Laserfiche WebLink
Berry, David <br />From: Jeff Fugate [Jeff.Fugate ©state.co.us] <br />Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:08 PM <br />To: 'Chris Kamper' <br />Cc: Berry, David <br />Attachments: GENERATurner inspection comments.pdf; Turner FAX 1 April 5, 2012.pdf; Turner FAX 2 April <br />5, 2012.pdf <br />Chris, <br />Attached please find three recent letters received by David Berry from Ms. Turner. In addition, below in blue <br />are the e -mail responses that I sent to Chris Mcanany regarding these letters and Ms. Turner's request that they <br />be treated as confidential. Please call if you have any additional questions. <br />Jeff <br />Sent Friday April 6 <br />Chris, <br />Attached are two faxes received by DRMS on April 5 from JoEllen Turner. Although the letters are <br />confusing and it is difficult to make sense of what information it is that she was trying to relay to the Division, it <br />is clear that she has requested that the letters be held in confidence by the Division. Under the Coal Rules and <br />Regulations, there are very limited instances in which the Division treats correspondence from the public as <br />confidential. Rule 5.02.5 discusses confidentiality as it relates to a comment letter that request the Division to <br />conduct an inspection. Specifically, Rule 5.02.5(2) states that the "identity of any person supplying the <br />information to the Division in requesting an inspection shall remain confidential, unless that person elects to <br />accompany the inspector on the inspection... ". Therefore, the protection of confidentiality afforded by the rules <br />is limited in application. <br />In this instance, Ms. Turner did not request an inspection in either fax, therefore the confidentiality <br />option does not apply. Even if an inspection was requested, I am not sure that the content of the letters could <br />be treated as confidential. Therefore, the Division cannot provide Ms. Turner with the confidentiality requested. <br />Please inform Ms. Turner that, in most instances, letters that she submits to the Division will not be held <br />in confidence. Because Ms. Turner may have submitted the two faxes under the assumption they would be held <br />in confidence, please advise myself and the Division if she wishes to withdraw these faxes by close of business <br />Monday, April 9. If we do not hear from you /her, the Division is obligated to forward these letters to the <br />operator and add them to the public permit file. <br />Please call if you have any questions. <br />Sent Monday April 9 <br />Mr. McAnany, <br />Attached please find another letter from Ms. Turner requesting that it be held in confidence by the Division. <br />Please note that Ms. Turner has misstated /misapplied the Rule and is incorrect in her assertion that this letter is <br />confidential. As was stated in the e -mail I sent last Friday, under the Coal Rules and Regulations, there are very <br />limited instances in which the Division treats correspondence from the public as confidential. Rule 5.02.5 <br />1 <br />