ENFORCE36840

• Permit No: C1980002
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 3/6/1996
• Doc Name: Findings of Fact for NOV CV1995025 & CO CO1995028
• Violation No.: CO1995028
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

6. On December 21, 1995, and in accordance with Rule
5.03.5(3)(c), notices were sent to Robert Weaver, and other
interested parties, indicating that a Formal Hearing had been
scheduled for the January 24-25, 1996 meeting of the Mined
Land Reclamation Board to consider the Show Cause Order,
possible permit revocation, and possible bond forfeiture. The
December 21, 1995 notice also indicated that civil penalty
assessment might be addressed at the January 24-25, 1995 Board
hearing.
7. On January 5, 1995, and in accordance with Rules 5.03.3(1)(a)
and 5.03.5(3)(c), a newspaper notice was published in The
Gunnison Country Times, advising of the Show Cause Order and
of the scheduled hearing before the Board. This newspaper
publication also indicated that civil penalty assessment
associated with NOV C-95-025 and CO C-95-028 might be
addressed at the January 24-25, 1996 Board hearing.
8. On January 17, 1996, the DMG received a letter from Robert
Weaver, dated January 10, 1995, in which Mr. Weaver requested
that the Show Cause Order, permit revocation, bond forfeiture
and any civil penalties associated with NOV C-95-025 and CO C-
95-028 be considered by the Board during the January 1996
Board meeting. This letter requested an expedited process,
and it effectively waived the permittees' right to receive
the proposed civil penalty assessment typically issued by the
DMG in accordance with Rule 5.04.3.
9. On January 24, 1996, and in accordance with C.R.S. 34-33-
124(4) and 123(8)(f), and Rules 5.01.3(2), 5.03.3(3)(a),
5.03.5(1), and 5.04.4 a Formal Public Hearing was held before
the Mined Land Reclamation Board to consider the Show Cause
Order, permit revocation, bond forfeiture and civil penalty
assessment associated with NOV C-95-025 and CO C-95-028.
10. During the January 24, 1996 Board hearing, both the DMG and
Mr. Weaver addressed the Board, and both parties recommended
that the matter of civil penalty assessment be addressed at
the hearing to expedite resolution of the enforcement and
revocation process.
11. During the January 24, 1996 meeting, Mr. Weaver did not
contest the issuance of the NOV C-95-025 and CO C-95-028;
however, Mr. Weaver reiterated his inability to continue with
reclamation or maintenance of the O.C. No. 2 Mine.
12. The Board did not deem it appropriate or necessary, in this
case, to cause an additional investigation as allowed by Rule
5.03.5(2).
13. The DMG testified that Mr. Weaver had cooperated with the DMG
to date, and had conducted site maintenance and site
reclamation to the best of his abilities.