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 4
After publication of the decision, the applicant requested a hearing
before the Board and, at that time, also entered into discussions with
the Division concerning the issues that surrounded the proposed
decision to deny the renewal. A letter of Agreement between the
Division and the company was developed as a result of the discussions.
A specific time was set for the company to submit additional
information to the Division. The Board approved that agreement at the
December 1990 Board Meeting and set a deadline of June 1, 1990, for the
applicant to submit the additional information. Staff presented
EXHIBIT A - MLRD Exhibits A through H.
Staff explained that today the applicant would tike to discuss with the
Board the possibility of obtaining an extension of time past the June
1, 1990, submittal date. Staff stated that, over the past month, a
question arose as to whether or not the bond for the site was still in
good standing. The Division received a letter from the FDIC stating
that the bank that had issued the Letter of Credit (5931,000) for the
present disturbance at the site was in receivership. The FDIC took
over that bank in July of 1989, but the Division did not receive
notification until April 1990. The Letter of Credit wi]1 expire in
September of 1990. The Division has issued a violation, as required by
regulations, for the possibility of not having a bond at the site. The
Division was not notified by the bank, as required, that the bank was
in jeopardy of going into foreclosure. Staff reminded the Board that
before a positive determination to issue the renewal could be made, the
Division would have be assured that the bond was adequate and still
valid. Staff stated that a review of the bond determined that the
existing reclamation bond was deficient and would need to be increased
to an estimated b1,12S,000. The Letter of Agreement included a
condition that a rider increasing the amount of the bond would be
submitted by June 1, 1990. Staff discussed specifics of other adequacy
concerns with the Board and answered their questions.
Mr. David Sturges, an attorney, addressed the Board on behalf of the
company and discussed the status of legal and financial problems being
experienced by the company at this time. He submitted EXHIBIT B - a
copy of an affidavit from Mr. Ron Yandell, an attorney represen ing
Pueblo Coal, Incorporated in bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Sturges
answered questions from the Board.
Staff stated that if the company does not submit a bond by June 1,
1990, the Division would issue a Cessation Order and bring this matter
before the Board at its June Meeting to request forfeiture, in order to
resolve this issue. Staff said that the permit could not be renewed,
if a bond was not in place, and this bond will not be reinstated by the
bank upon its September 1990 expiration; the permit expired in October
of 1988. In response to a question from the Board, Staff explained the
bond forfeiture proceeding. The Division would probably initiate full
reclamation within a year, if this permit is not renewed. Staff
related that environmental issues at the site currently concern
maintenance; violations have been resolved at the site, and there are
no ongoing environmental concerns.
Possible proceedings for the June Board Meeting, regarding this matter,
were discussed further in detail. Mr. Johnson, Assistant Attorney