1992-08-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

Minutes, January 22-23, 1992 24 In response to an inquiry from the Board regarding the ability to post an additional bond, Mr. Delaney stated that he did not feel the estimated $3 million bond was deficient. However, he said he felt a problem did exist with the surety on the bond. Mr. Delaney stated that approximately $800,000 of the bond relates to the removal of structures from the site, which he said would be self-financed. Mr. Delaney stated that the operator was not in a position to post an additional bond. At this point, Staff presented distributed EXHIBIT C, a proposed Board Order continuing consideration of permit revocation. Mr. Henriksen clarified that Paragraph No. 2 of the Order requires that the operator perform reclamation according to the schedule set out in the May 1991 Board Order. However, he said the May Order does not direct the operator to begin physical reclamation until May of 1992, therefore, the operator considers that, if approved, No. 2 is an order for the operator to continue its discussions with the Division regarding the planning stage of identifying the Scope of reclamation needs and how it could be accomplished. The Board clarified that Item A of the Order, submittal of the reclamation plan, is considered the commencement of reclamation. The Order states that the operator will report to the Division as to its plan, including a satisfactory demonstration of its capability to proceed. The plan has not yet been submitted. Staff agreed and stated there is a commitment from the operator to submit, within the next 30 days , estimates or other such documents regarding structural dismantlement, as well as a clarification of which kinds of reclamation will be accomplished. In response to a concern of the Board, Mr. JohrrSon- said this issue was addressed in Item 3 of the existing Order, specifying that the provisions of the May Order shall remain in full force and effect. In reference to Paragraph 2, he said the Board would be continuing the hearing to revoke the permit, whether or not the operator has made a showing that they can perform reclamation. Under the terms of the May Order, today' s hearing was scheduled to determine whether the operator can perform reclamation, according to demonstrations presented by the operator. Mr. Johnson clarified that the proposed Order presented .today is a . request 'for. continuation of - that -corisider-ation to the February Board Meeting. It was MOVED that the Board continue this matter to the February 1992 Board Meeting, as established in the Order. SECONDED AND PASSED 5 for (Danielson, Cooley, Jouflas , Stewart and Danni ) ; 1 abstention (Cattany) ; 1 recused (Kraeger-Rovey) .