Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jim Tatum -2- December 6, 1994 <br />4. You requested all information that BRI had submitted for Stipulation No. 70. BRI had <br />submitted revised permit pages 2.05-55 and 2.05-56. These pages are included with this <br />letter. <br />5. You mquested all information that BRI had submitted for Stipulation No. 28 since January <br />1993. This stipulation requires that five adobe structures be monitored for subsidence in <br />compliance with Rule 2.05.6(6)(c)(i)(D). This rule requires that monitoring of a structure <br />begin one month prior to the beginning of undermining beneath the structure. Map 3, <br />entitled "Golden Eagle Mine Plan," and Map 16, entitled "Structure Inventory," show that <br />the five adobe structures have not been undermined. It is also our understanding that as that <br />portion of the mine has been closed, these structures are not scheduled to be undermined in <br />the future. Monitoring of these structures is therefore not required, nor is occurring, at this <br />time. <br />6. You requested an explanation of Statement No. 8 in Section A of the January 1994 Findings <br />Document for Permit Renewal for the Golden Eagle Mine, in light of the October 26, 1993 <br />memoranda from Coal Program Supervisor Steven G. Renner to Division of Minerals and <br />Geology Director Michael B. Long. <br />Statement No. 8 begins, "The operator does not control and has not controlled mining <br />operations with a demonstrated pattern of willful violations of the Act..." The October 1993 <br />memoranda describe the Coal Program's determinations regarding Patterns of Violations that <br />had existed in 1993 at the Golden Eagle and New Elk Mines. These memoranda further <br />describe the determinations that the violations comprising the Patterns of Violations at both <br />mines were caused by the unwarranted failure of Basin Resources, Inc. to comply with the <br />requirements of the Act, Rules, and/or permit wnditions. <br />Statement No. 8 does not conflict with the October 1993 memoranda. To understand this, <br />the difference between violations that are deemed to have been caused by "the unwarranted <br />failure of the permittee to comply with the requirements of the Act" and violations that are <br />deemed to have been willfully caused by the permittce should be clarified. <br />"Willful violations" are described in the Board's Regulations at Section 1.04(151) as acts <br />committed by permittees who intend the result that actually occurs. Violations that are <br />deemed to have been caused by a permittee's "unwarranted failure to comply" with the <br />conditions of the Act, Rules or permit are described at Section 1.04(146) as violations that <br />occurred due to a permittee's "indifference, lack of diligence or lack of reasonable care." <br />Because of this difference, a difference exists between a Pattern of Violations that is <br />comprised of "unwarranted failure to comply" violations and a Pattern of Violations that is <br />comprised of "willful" violations. <br />The distinction in these two types of Patterns of Violations is found in the Board's <br />Regulations at Section 5.03.3(1)(a). This Section describes the regulatory requirement for <br />