ENFORCE34064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rJOtice oC l•'iulaCinn R~I-l~r 1. Thn rc is nn rli ~pufr .il~unt th,• li i::turv u( vir~l•rr i-~n•; r:nml,nncnC of f:he c.i vil penalty. The rc furo, ;.l r10.r10 ir. n:: •.r•:r.r•rl for I: h~~r 1. component. , 2. On the question of "~;r•riou~m~;s", ts'n]dr~n Coal Cr~mp•~ny stnLrs that they) believe that mining withnut ,~ pe rnril i.s a violntinn of an arlministrativc rc- quirement, not a performance rrrruiremr_nt. Thn Division agrees with hlalden Coal Company on this poinC. IJalrlen Coal Cnmp.un] st.iCc? further that the Division's enforcemenC of the applicable reyulntinns w.rs not obstructer! by the mining without a permit, and the refnre, the pcnnJtu nssns~;mrnt should bo minimal. On this point the Di vislnn r)isngrr;es. Thn diffnrencr• lie; in the intr.rpr^- tation of what is an ol> Cruction in the en forcemnnt of the applicable regulations. The Division and the Don rd have plnccd n high rleyrn!~ erf imporCancc nn the necessity of having a permit to mini.. It is one of the basic componenCS of the law. The permit con Ca ins n minx. plan which sLntc; ~per_•ifically how .~ mine operator intends to comply with the npplicablc regulations. Idithout the mine plan and an approved penniL, it is difficult to rlr~lermine on a field in:;peetion whether an operator is in romplinnce with a rcyulnCinn. !`or c:mmplc, without a permit it is difficult to determine whether an operator is stripping toµsoil to a proper depth, has adequate scdim~~nt conCrnl, w~h,•th~r he has the Icga.l right to enter the propcrf.y, whether he is hondrd for Clio activity, and similar concerns. The en fo icemen l: of npplicahlc rr~,lul ar:inn:; i~ d~i ffir:ult, if not impossible in sor:x• in.tonr;rr,. I1nC hnvinq a ry•rmil and an approved plan obstructs the Division's ability to as-r;; cnngr.liancr` with sp~•cific a:;pr'ct: of the law because important in Conan lion is not avai l.rb le to m,ik~~ Chose a:; ;essmen L's. The Division consi.dcrs mining withnut ,~ prrrnil: Cn bn one of thr: rnor!~ serious vi olati Ons of an arlminir: F. raCivc• requi rcne int. I~nr this: rcn::rnt nnA r.ha:; r• stnU•d above, the Division proposes $750, n0 for Lhc rcrinn:ncr;-; crnnpnnrnit of the civil penalty. 3. For the component of the penalty aF.trilnrCral to "I'.ru1t", I:'aldcn Cnal Company proposes a penalty of $.150.00 and cite, 5.0~1.5(2)(c)(ii) as the npplicnble regulation to be usrd Cnr this determination. ^I~Inlden Con] Company ;talcs that it "did not act recf:.lessly or knowingly, but under the mistaken belief that the interim permit i;;uerl for the Dnury mine .included the Northgn to Loadout". The Division records do not support this contention, anrl, instead, indicate that the pernuttce wns well aware that a hermit did not exist for . this site. Dy letter of September 30, 1980, Flaryaret Flinter contacted the Division to determine what woulr] be necessary to obtain a permit for the Ioadout. There is nothinrr i.n the D.ivision's record which inrlicntes that there was any type. of npprw.r 1. (nr the ncti vily under Lnl;,~n nC tlv~ ]ondout. Also, the record shoi.~r. that tJnldrur Cnn1 Conq,.unl wa~: in(nrrnnrl thnl; a pr`nnil: was ncerled to undert.il:c Lh~~ .v;Civi f~l nr: Ch.: Ioadour. Tn or. der for the Di. vision P" carpi der I:haC Lhir: vi nlnl inn wn: a result: u( rtegligeece rather f:hnn recklc.s-.nes:, the rlr•LCrminal.inn cnnnnt br b:c;r•rl on .ir/noranee on thr. pnrC of Ih^ nhcrnf:nr LhnC h,• Lhrnr,rht hr her) n pr~rmit, .r; is stated in the lettr.r of .Inrrr• ?3, 1`181. ~ lnstr•nd, Lhr• Divrrian helievr.:; the operator demonstrated a Inr;F: of diligence, and l~ns:ibl~l iridiffercnce, in not obtaining a permit to conduct the activity. 'ibis wns "rreyliycnt" as the term is used in the regulations. .r_._ ,- _-...t_ ..