My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36467
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36467
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:57:00 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:45:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/23/1984
Doc Name
DIV PRESENTATION GEC SHOW CAUSE HEARING FEB 23 1984
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. -.. <br />-s- <br />Division Recommendation <br />In summary, I believe that sufficient evidence exists to justify the following <br />actions by the Board: <br />Revocation of Permit C-037-81 <br />Ne recommend that the Board revoke permit C-037-81 in accordance with <br />Rule 5.03.5(4)(c). A pattern of violations exists at G.E.C. Strtp. NOY 83-21 <br />and Cessation Order 83-001 demonstrate that G.E.C. Minerals, Inc. has failed <br />to follow the terms of the reclamation plan in permit C-031-81. The results <br />of this failure are unbonded disturbance. The Division believes that, based <br />on calculations in permit C-037-81 and a survey conducted by G.E.C. in August <br />of 1983, that G.E.C. Strip is underbonded by at least 5212,000.00. I believe <br />that the Division has given G.E.C. Minerals every chance afforded by the law <br />to bring the mine into compliance with its permit and to rectify the <br />underbonded circumstances. Over the last nine months, G.E.C. has not been <br />able to correct these violations in accordance with procedures established in <br />the law, Additionally, the site has been virtually abandoned. None of the <br />roads, drainage control structures, or reclaimed areas are being maintained as <br />required by the permit and Rule 4. The site is not secured to prevent access <br />by the public into a potentially hazardous area. All of these violations have <br />been documented by the Division through the enforcement process. Ne believe <br />these circumstances ~usttfy revocation of permit C-037-81. <br />Forfeiture of Performance Bonds <br />We further recommend that the Board set a hearing date in March to consider <br />forfeit the performance bonds associated with the permit to assure reclamation <br />of the site. Rules 5.03.5(4) and 3.04 require the Board to consider <br />forfeiture of performance bonds in cases where a permit has been revoked or <br />suspended. This concludes my presentation. I would like now to enter our <br />exhibits 1n summary for the record and to answer any questions you have. <br />/ep <br />Doc. No. 9520 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.