Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br />3. This permit carried with it the right of successive renewal under <br />Rule 2.08.5. Pursuant to that rule Western Slope Carbon, Inc. submitted <br />an application for renewal of their mining permit on December 7, 1987. <br />4. On June 7, 1988 the Division elected not to make an administrative <br />decision on the renewal application in order to allow additional time for <br />resolution of several issues before making a decision. <br />5. On September 15, 1988 the Division issued a recommendation that the <br />renewal application be denied. This recommendation was based on a <br />finding that 1) the terms and conditions of the existing permit were not <br />being satisfactorily met, 2) the present surface coal mining and <br />reclamation operation was not in compliance with the Act and these Rules, <br />and 3) additional revised or updated information required by the <br />Division had not been provided. <br />6. The Division presented its recommendation to the Board, after proper <br />notice, on November 15, 1988 and again on December 14, 1988 after <br />granting of a continuance. <br />7. As the opponent of the renewal the Division presented evidence pertaining <br />to Western Slope Carbon, Inc. 's performance. <br />With regard to the terms and conditions of the permit the Division <br />indicated that required subsidence and vegetation monitoring had not been <br />conducted, that a spill of hydraulic fluid had occurred and had not been <br />cleaned up. In addition terms and conditions placed on the permit <br />transfer had not been met. These terms and conditions addressed meeting <br />the repayment agreement with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and <br />Enforcement for abandoned mine lands fees, and pursuing in good faith the <br />appeal which was brought in Missouri. <br />The Division referenced six enforcement actions which have been taken at <br />the site in 1988, thereby demonstrating that the mine is not in <br />compliance. These enforcement actions pertained to both administrative <br />and performance standard requirements. In addition coal mining <br />operations in Missouri were found not be be in compliance as evidenced by <br />permit revocation and bond forfeiture which occurred in that State on <br />June 29, 1988. <br />Finally, the Division indicated that the renewal process had not been <br />completed since all information requested by the Division had not been <br />provided. <br />