ENFORCE22277

• Permit No: M1977210
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 8/23/1989
• Doc Name: MLRB MINUTES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Minutes, August 23-24, 1989
PAGE 11
from the operator on July 25, 1987, stating compliance with the
condition of the permit. The financial and performance warranties were
brought to the Division on that date. Staff related that video taped
evidence had been taken on July 25, 1987, by the Division showing that
machinery had been operating on this site.
On July 31, 1989, h1r. Ted Aragon, from Texasgulf, discussed this
situation with the Division, and agreed that they were actively
operating the sites, but would immediately cease and desist
operations. On August 2, 1989, the Division decided that this was
probably mining without a permit, and Mr. Aragon was contacted. Staff
presented ATTACHMENT E - a August 1, 1989, Texasgulf memo to Mr.
Aragon. T e meFi- mo was provided by Mr. Aragon and stated that processing
had begun at the sites. The Division responded by forwarding the
company a Reason to Believe letter on August 3, 1989. The sites were
inspected on August 16. Staff related that the Division does consider
this to be a violation; slides of that inspection were not shown, but
were considered as evidence supporting the possible violation. The
permits were issued on August 1, 1989.
Mr. Aragon, the attorney for the operator, and Mr. Jeff Griffin, also
with Texasgulf, addressed the Board and answered their questions.
Staff presented ATTACHMENTS F & G -Civil Penalties Worksheets for
Agenda Items 15 an ma e t e following recommendation: 1) a
violation be found in both cases, 2) that no Cease and Desist be
issued, because the likely corrective action of providing a permit
application has been completed. Therefore, no corrective actions would
be recommended, at this time. Staff suggested Civil Penalties in the
amount of E350 be levied against the operator for each site.
It was MOVED the Board levy a Civil Penalty of E700 for mining without
a permit at each site. SECONDED AND PASSED 3 for (Danielson, Entz and
Cooley); 2 against (Donald and O'Connor); 1 abstention (Kraeger-Rovey).
There was discussion, regarding the length of time mining disturbances
occurred at the mine sites.
It was MOVED that the Board reconsider its previous Motion. SECONDED
AND PA5~5E~~ for (Danielson, O'Conner and Entz); 2 against (Donald and
Cooley); 1 abstention (Kraeger-Rovey).
It was MOVED that the Board find a violation for mining without a
permit ~'or each site, the Upper Mary McKinney and the Hull City/
Sacramento. SECONDED AND PASSED 5 for (Danielson, O'Connor, Entz,
Donald and Cooley); 1 abstention (Kraeger-Rovey).
Staff informed the Board that the operator should be notified that he
would have 20 days' notice, prior to the consideration of Civil
Penalties, but does have the option to waive the 20-ddy notice period.
The operator waived that 20-day period and asked that the issue of
Civil Penalties be resolved today.