My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE26474
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE26474
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:24 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:19:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/19/2007
Doc Name
(E-mailed) Regarding Additional Information
From
Ann Tatum
To
DRMS
Violation No.
CV2007001
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
July 19, 2007 <br />Page 2 <br />painfully aware, most mining bonds are woefully inadequate tc cover the full cost of <br />required reclamation should The permittee oltum baxtkruptey. And aren't the statements <br />of Basin's legal representative tantamount to claiming battlattptcy? <br />Finally, the coal regulations require that the applicant submit and the applicant <br />maintain a liability insurance certificate throughout the life of the germit. Westmoreland <br />submitted such a certificate in its name -not Basin's. How can the Division accept such <br />a double standard? By law, Basin has not met its obligations to secure, in its' name, the <br />required policy. Why has there nvl been tut cttfurceutetrt action to require compliance. <br />What if there was an injury or death on the property. Westmoreland claims no <br />responsibility for the mine. Do you think the current policy is worth the paper it is <br />written on? <br />In April, 2001, Westmoreland purchased Basin Resources, with permit C-81-O i ~; <br />Golden Eagle Mine, specifically identified in the sale. As such, ail rights contained <br />within the permits previously held by Basin were sold to Westmoreland. Not only did <br />Westmoreland become the owner and controller of the permit, as has been verified <br />thruuglt tilts AVS system, but they also became the successor in interest to the rights <br />granted by that permit. Why, therefore, did the Division fail to approve an official permit <br />transfer as required by la+W? <br />As you know, damage associated with mine subsidence can occur again and <br />again. It is not a one shot deal. That is why the regulations specifically address the fact <br />that the permittee is responsible for damages even if the perforruaace bond is released by <br />the regulatory authority. We have experienced damage from minx subsidence tuure that <br />once. Who will we turn to in the future for compensation under the coal law? <br />The Division is now aware of the subsidence liabilities associated with the Golden <br />Eagle. Mine. You are also now aware of the inappropriate liability insurance certificate <br />on file for the permit. You have also been apprised, by Basin/Westmoreland council, that <br />Basin allegedly has neither assets nor revenue and Westmoreland claims no responsibility <br />For debts of Basin. What more does the Division need to finally require Westmoreland to <br />take responsibility under this permit as required by law'? <br />It is imperative that the Division Commence immediate action to require a <br />transfer of permit C-$1-013 from Basin to Westmoreland retroaMive t~ the, date of sale. <br />The bond needs to be increased to address the likely occurrence of future damage due to <br />ctthsidence. The liability insurance needs to comport with the "pemuttee" to ensure <br />adequate coverage. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this matter. To ignore Basin's <br />latest utterances of their inability to perform per the Act, State, and Federal requirements <br />E0 3Jt/d Wf11t11 WIC 69t09b86tL tl~tl L00Z16t/L0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.