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

i •
1
Minutes, May 23-24, 1990 PAGE 19
In February of 1990, the company informed the Division that they would
not be able to comply with the first portion of the Order, i.e., the
posting of b125,337 additional bond. The additional bond was due in
mid-February. The Division issued a notice of violation, when the bond
was not submitted.
The permit expired in April of 1990, so there is currently no permit
for this site.
Staff recommended the Board: 1) verify that there is no permit for
this site and affirm the Division's denial of permit renewal, 2) stay
the Division from further actions on the December 1989 Board Order or
modify the Board Order and 3) put the site under a Board Order of the
alternate enforcement mode.
Staff presented EXHIBIT A - information regarding this permit and the
denial of renewal. Staff discussed conditions of the permit and its
denial.
Staff presented Exhibit 3 - a copy of the Statute and Regulation
concerning Permit Denial. Staff commenced to review 5 possible
condition for permit denial. After presenting detailed evidence that 2
of the 4 non-compliant conditions occurred at the site, Mr. Dennis
Donald asked Mr. Dean Massey, consultant for Rockcastle, if he
contested the denial.
Mr. Dean Massey replied that the company did not contest the denial and
Noted that-the permit had expired, as the operator did not pursue the
re-application process.
It was MOVED that the Board find that there is no permit for this
site. SECtTRDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley,
O'Connor, Donald and Jouflas).
Staff discussed the options which the Board could consider with respect
to the performance bond, since there is no permit in place for this
site. The Board could: 1) forfeit the entire bond, 2) forfeit part of
the bond or 3) order reclamation to occur under a specific schedule
within an alternative enforcement mode. During discussions with the
Division, the company agreed to perform reclamation at the site during
1990. Staff stated that the reclamation plan proposed by the operator
contains issues that require resolution with the Division, prior to
being presented to the Board for approval. Staff requested that the
Board delay consideration of the compliance schedule of the reclamation
plan until the details have been resolved, including involvement of the
landowner, assessment of the role of the surety holder, evaluation of
the mechanism through which the reclamation will be conducted and
additional liability issues.
Staff recommended that the Board not forfeit tl
June Board Meeting, to allow the Division time
compliance schedule which is beneficial to the
that the Board could also consider authorizing
favorable agreement to the State and appoint a
that agreement.
re bond, prior to the
to negotiate a
State. Staff stated
the Division to reach a
Board Member to review