Laserfiche WebLink
C <br /> <br />/Mined Land Reclamation Board -2- <br />~ --- - <br />January 16, 1996 <br />On December 5, 1995, Notice of Violation (NOV) C-95-025 (copy attached) was issued for failure <br />to contemporaneously reclaim the O.C. Mine No. 2 by November 1, 1995. NOV No. C-95-025 <br />required complete reclamation of the O.C. Mine No. 2 by December 11, 1995. An aerial <br />inspection was conducted on December 15, 1995, and the inspection verified that reclamation had <br />not occurred. On December 18, 1995, Cessation Order (CO) C-95-028 (copy attached) was <br />issued, with an abatement deadline specified as 5:00 p. m. December I8, 1995. Also on December <br />18, 1995, the attached letter was received from Mr. Weaver in which he stated his inability to <br />comply, and he requested that the hood be forfeited. <br />It is our recommendation that permit revocation and bond forfeiture occur, since these actions are <br />in We best interest of all parties. The Division will be able to proceed with reclamation as soon as <br />possible, and there is adequate money to ensure proper reclamation. It is our opinion that Mr. <br />Weaver has complied [o the best of his abilities, and he has used all available means to cooperate <br />with the Division. We will be requesting that the Board consider granting substantial relief from <br />civil penalties in this case. Specific rule citations and bases are provided below relative to each <br />action.to .be_considered. <br />Permit Revocation <br />Rule 5.03.3(5) requires that "whenever a permittee fails to abate a violation contained in a notice <br />of violation or cessation order within the abatement periods set in the notice or order or as <br />subsequently extended, the Administrator shall. review the permittee's history of violations to <br />determine whether a pattern of viohttioas exists... and shall issue an order to show cause...." <br />Based upon the fact that NOV C-95-025 and CO C-95-028 were not, and would not be, abated, an <br />"Order to Show Cause Why Permit Should Not Be Suspended or Revoked" (Order) (copy attached) <br />was issued for failure to abate the NOV and CO. There is no pattern of violations in this case. <br />Rule 5.03.5(4)(c) requires that when a hearing is held, regarding a Show Cause Order, the Board <br />shall issue a written decision as to whether or not a permit will be suspended or revoked. <br />The operator has indicated his inability to comply any further, and he is not contesting the permit <br />revocation. We recommend that the O.C. Mine No. 2, Permit No. C-80-002, should be revoked. <br />Bond Forfeiture <br />Rule 3.04.1(1) states that "the Board shall declare all or an appropriate part of a performance bond <br />for any permit as forfeited if the Board determines that any of the following circumstances exist:" <br />One of the circumstances is specified at Rule 3.04.1(c), which states: "The pernrit has been <br />suspended or revoked, and neither the permittee nor the surety has assumed liability for completion <br />of the reclamation work under a compliance schedule approved under 3.04.1(2)." <br />As discussed above, the permittee has asked that the bond be forfeited. The bond for this site is a <br />cash bond in the amount of $36,000.00, and there is no surety entity involved. The bond is <br />