ENFORCE26105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tgike Savage - 2 - June 12, 1987 The Board previously issued Arness-McGriffin two cease-and-desist orders for this site: conducting surface coal mining operations when only underground coal mining operations were permitted (June 27, 1979); and, or con ucting surface coal mining operations outside the approved permit area (July 25, 1979). The abatement was to su m~ it an amendment within sixty (60) days (i.e., by September 23, 1979). An amendment was received on October 23, 1979 which did not address the interim Federal regulations. Therefore, letters to this effect were sent to Arness-McGriffin in December 1979. An application to address the Colorado Permanent Regulatory Program was not received until February 17, 1981. This application was deemed incomplete as addressed in our March 16, 1981 letter. To date, the Division has never received a reply; therefore, this site remains unpermitted since permit 77-3-UG expired on August 16, 1981. The failure by Arness-McGriffin to submit the required amendment within the prescribed timeframes and to obtain approval of this amendment or the Permanent Regulatory Program permit constitutes a failure to comply (Rule 7.8(a)(1)). The Performance Warranty, as addressed in Pule 7.8(a)(2), is a written promise by the operator to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act. Currently, the Minerals Program has a specific form entitled "Performance Warranty" that is executed. Back in 1979, however, there was no such form. Therefore, submittal of a financial warranty and obtainment of a permit inherently carries a promise to comply with the Act. Based on a review of this file, it is obvious that Arness- McGriffin has failed to cure the outstanding default. Furthermore, by not having a valid permit, Arness-McGriffin is not complying with this Act or the Coal Law; thus, a failure to comply with Rule 7.8(a)(2). (As a point of clarification, Pule 7.8(a)(3) relates to maintaining the financial warranty or bond and Rule 7.8(a)(4) relates to the financial warrantor no longer having the financial ability to carry out the obligations. Neither of these two circumstances exist at this site.) As addressed in Rule 7.8(b) below, thzt financial warranty forfeiture Loge, the 3oard 'pas empowered Oave need to submit a request to Dave a Hearing. the Board must find reason to believe S aD,^, rOp r: at°_. According t0 ~~ia ri: Sneiton to find reasor~ to believe. b;E id, if he agrees, then schedule a 3oard (b) Whenever the Board, based on information and belief, has reason to believe that a Financial Warranty is subject to forfeiture, the Board shall so notify the Operator and all financial warrantors. The Board shall afford the Operator and all financial warrantors the right to appear before the Board at a hearing to be held not less than thirty days after the parties' receipt of said notice. Any such hearing shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Title 24, C.R.S.