Laserfiche WebLink
have a bond that complies with all regulatory requirements. The bond Powderhom has <br />posted to ensure that reclamation is conducted does not meet regulatory requirements. <br />Therefore, Powderhor itself is in violation. <br />Moreover, Powderhom's azgument implies that the Division, the Boazd and Colorado <br />taxpayers should assume the risk that Powderhor will not reclaim its site and the risk that <br />Frontier cannot pay on its bond. Powderhor has extracted coal at this site since 1981. Its <br />permit area covers approximately 10,400 acres of land, mostly federal land. Powderhom was <br />allowed to extract coal for almost 20 years. Powderhom chose to cease mining in 1999. <br />Now Powderhom thinks it would be inequitable for this Board to require that it comply with <br />regulations despite the fact that it has not completed its reclamation obligations, that it has <br />not provided the Division with any assurance that it can perform reclamation in spite of its <br />bankruptcy, and that it has not complied with financial assurance requirements. This Board <br />should reject Powderhom's plea. There is nothing inequitable about holding Powderhom <br />responsible for reclaiming its own mine site and requiring that it give the Division a bond <br />that provides the financial assurance required by the regulations and meets all regulatory <br />provisions. <br />To emphasize, Powderhom has given absolutely no indication that Powderhor wil[ <br />continue to exist as a corporate entity under any bankruptcy reorganization or that the <br />Division and the Boazd will receive any funds to conduct reclamation under any proposed <br />reorganization or liquidation plan. Indeed, Powderhom did not formally support the <br />Division's efforts to have the proceeds from the sale of the machinery and equipment be <br />20 <br />