Laserfiche WebLink
attempting to avoid a cessation order and forfeiture despite the fact it has failed to <br />replace the Frontier bond. This Board should reject Powderhorn's attempt. <br />VI. <br />There is nothing inequitable about requiring Powderhorn to comply with <br />regulatory requirements and have a valid bond in place. <br />For the reasons stated in the Division's Response to Powderhom's Petition <br />concerning the December NOV, the Division requests the Board to deny <br />Powderhorn's plea for relief from the NOV at issue in this response. The Division, <br />however, wishes to reiterate the following points: <br />First, Powderhom is bankrupt with no visible means to finance reclamation of <br />its site. Powderhorn has taken no steps in the bankruptcy proceeding to obtain <br />financial support for reclamation. In addition, the surety for this site is in financial <br />straits and has lost its licenses to do business with the federal government and to do <br />business within the state of Colorado. Despite the bond being out of regulatory <br />compliance, Powderhorn has not taken any steps in the bankruptcy proceeding to <br />obtain a replacement bond. <br />Second, Powderhom has been allowed to mine for almost 20 years prior to the <br />time it chose to cease operations. That its surety thereafter became incapacited does <br />not justify Powderhorn's plea not to enforce the NOVs and require replacement of the <br />bond or face forfeiture of the bond. An operator is required to comply with all <br />regulatory requirements until bond release. An essential requirement is having a <br />1~ <br />