PERMFILE100702

• Permit No: C1982054
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 5/23/1990
• Doc Name: DRAFT MINUTES MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Minutes, May 23-24, 1990 PAGE 16
Staff reviewed the history of this violation. In July of T989, the
Division inspected this site and discovered potential problems. On
September 18, 1989, the Division sent a Reason to Believe Letter to the
operator addressing possible violations of pumping the pit and mining
outside the approved permit boundaries. A hearing was held at the
October 1989 Board Meeting, and the operator was issued a notice of
violation for failure to comply with the mine plan (de-watering when
only wet operation approved) and mining without a permit (mining
outside approved permit boundaries) and assessed a 525,000 civil
penalty. In December of 1989 the Board considered a request for
reconsideration and decided not to reconsider this matter. Based on a
request received in February, the Board, at the February Board Meeting,
decided this issue would be reconsidered at the May Board Meeting.
Today the Board would consider whether or not the operator was in
violation for mining outside the permit boundary and not conforming
with their permit application.
Mr. Jack Hurlburt, the operator, presented EXHIBIT A - a packet of
information including correspondence and a copy oche 1977 permit
application for the Adams Pit. He discussed the contents of the
Exhibit and referred to these in his presentation to the Board. The
major points addressed by Mr. Hurlburt were that in 1977 Thornton had
not finalized their plans for the property, after purchase from Mobile
Premix, that the contract between Mobile Premix and Thornton
relinquished Mobile Premix from control on all water rights and the
lake levels. Thornton decided to ]ine the lakes which required
de-watering, Mobile Premix obtained a discharge permit from the
Department of Health (#C06-500102), and that the 1977 application
mining plan states that most mining will be done by the wet dredging
method. Mr. Hurlburt acknowledged this inconsistency and answered
questions from the Board. Mr. John Hickman, representing the operator,
discussed the company's relationship with the City of Thornton. He
stated that the City of Thornton requested the de-watering activity.
Mr. Hickman answered questions from the Board.
Staff addressed the issues of failure to comply with the mine plan and
mining without a permit. Staff stated that the de-watering that
occurred at this site was required, in order for the operator to line
the lake. The approved permit does not call for de-watering or
lake-lining.
Staff concluded that the operator was in violation of the permit,
specifically pages 11 of the 1979 conversion application and page 4 of
the 1981 amendment, because a de-watering operation was being
conducted. The approved permit was for a wet mining operation using a
dredge. Staff answered questions from the Board.
It was MOVED that the Board reaffirm that there is a violation for
failure~omply with the mine plan. SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
(Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley, O'Connor, Donald and Jouflas).
While addressing the issue of mining outside the permit boundary, Mr,
Hurlburt referenced the 1977 permit document contained in his Exhibit A