|
<br />entering the pond as a result of a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event, pursuant to
<br />Rule 4.05.613)(al. NOV C-92-021 was issued to the permittee for its failure to
<br />maintain the principal spillways of permanent impoundments 15-P1 , 15-P2, 15-P20
<br />and 22-P17, pursuant to Rule 4.05.9(1)(e).
<br />4. Following the July 28, 1992 inspection, the Division, pursuant to Rule 5.03.2(2)lal,
<br />issued on August 28, 1992 Notice of Violation No. C-92-027 to the permittee for
<br />its failure to maintain the road leading to the east half of the mine site, pursuant to
<br />Rules 4.03.1(6)(a), 4.03.1(611b1, 4.03.2(611a) and 4.03.2(6)(bl•
<br />5. Following the July 28, 1992 inspection, the Division, pursuant to Rule 5.03.2(21(al,
<br />issued on October 16, 1992 Notices of Violation Nos. C-92-028 and C-92-029.
<br />NOV C-92-028 was issued to the permittee for its failure to maintain permanent
<br />impoundment 15-P2 so that discharge of water from the impoundment met applica-
<br />ble State and Federal water quality standards, pursuant to Rules 4.05.2(71,
<br />4.05.2(8) and 4.05.9(111a). NOV C-92-024 was issued to the permittee for its
<br />failure to maintain sediment pond 15-P1 1 so that the pond discharge met applicable
<br />State and Federal water quality standards, pursuant to Rules 4.05.2(71, 4.05.218)
<br />and 4.05.6(31(al, Ib) and (cl.
<br />6. The Division, pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(211a)(i) and (ivl, determined on
<br />February 18, 1993 that Notices of Violations C-92-013, C-92-014, C-92-020,
<br />C-92-021, C-92-028 and C-92-029 were examples of noncompliance by the
<br />permittee of the Regulations pertaining to protection of water quality and
<br />maintenance of hydrologic structures. The Division Administrator on
<br />February 22, 1993, pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(2), subsequently determined that a
<br />pattern of violations existed at the Trinidad Basin Mine.
<br />7. The Division, pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(tlla), determined that, in addition to the
<br />existence of a pattern of violations, the violations were caused by the unwarranted
<br />failure of the permittee to comply with the requirements of the Act and Regulations.
<br />The Division subsequently issued on February 22, 1993 an order to the permittee
<br />to show cause why the permit should not be suspended or revoked.
<br />8. At the time of the hearing, all of the Notices of Violation had either been upheld in
<br />Assessment Conferences or were not contested by the operator, were not the
<br />subject of requests by the permittee for Board review, and had passed their time
<br />frames for the permittee to request such review, pursuant to Rules 5.03.5, 5.04.3
<br />and 5.04.4.
<br />9. The permittee, pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(al, filed with the Division on
<br />March 29, 1993 a written request for Board review of the Order to Show Cause.
<br />10. The permittee requested at the formal public hearing that the mining and
<br />reclamation permit issued to Trinidad Basin Mining Company for the Trinidad Basin
<br />Mine be revoked.
<br />11. Procedures for service of notice and notification of the formal public hearing,
<br />pursuant to Rules 5.03.2, 5.03.4 and 5.03.5, were followed by the Division.
<br />
|