Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes, June 26 - 27, 1991 3 <br /> Staff presented information that the pattern of violations was issued <br /> on July 15, 1990, for five Notices of Violation and one Cessation Order <br /> related to hydrologic protection and drainage control and one Notice of <br /> Violation for failure to salvage topsoil. Each Notice of Violation was <br /> appealed by the operator, assessment conferences were held and the <br /> violations were upheld. In five of the six NOVs and the cessation <br /> order issued, the conference officer found that the operator was at <br /> fault and the violations had resulted from a lack of diligence on the <br /> part of the operator in properly maintaining facilities or otherwise <br /> insuring compliance with the permit, rules and law. The cessation <br /> order was appealed to the Board and upheld by the Board. <br /> The Division feels that the violations that constitute the pattern of <br /> violations, with one exception, were caused by an unwarranted failure <br /> of the operator to comply with the law and regulations, and, therefore, <br /> the Show Cause Order was properly issued. <br /> Since May of 1990, six additional violations have been issued to the <br /> operator and upheld upon appeal . Staff discussed the nature of the <br /> violations. May, July and October, 1990 inspections resulted in the <br /> issuance of the additional violations which were not included in the <br /> pattern of violations issued in July of 1990. <br /> Staff explained that it would not be in the best interest of the State <br /> for the Board to immediately revoke this operator's permit and forfeit <br /> the bond. In January of 1991 , the operator ceased operations at this <br /> site and is in temporary cessation. The only activities currently <br /> being conducted include those associated with mine maintenance, <br /> pumping; environmental- -compliance and-monitoring .requirements. -.The . <br /> operator has indicated that they -have 'no 'intent to resume dp-erations <br /> and are actively pursuing sale of the mine. The Division believes that <br /> it would be in the best interest of the State to allow the operator to <br /> sell the mine to an operator who would succeed to the permit with <br /> conditions that could require prompt initiation and completion of <br /> reclamation should the mine not be sold in a timely manner. Further <br /> conditions for the successor to the permit would insure timely <br /> abatement of outstanding violations and appropriate increase in bond <br /> amount, if necessary. <br /> Mr. Frank Johnson further discussed the proposed Settlement Agreement <br /> in detail , beginning with the terms of the agreement (Page 3, Exhibit <br /> A) . Staff provided information regarding the specific violations. Mr. <br /> Johnson pointed out that this matter has been scheduled for a hearing <br /> before the Board at its January 1992 Board Meeting to consider whether <br /> the operator could commence reclamation the following spring. This <br /> Agreement would give the operator until January 1992 to find an <br /> operator to succeed to their permit or to demonstrate the financial <br /> ability to reclaim the site. Failure to provide the financial <br /> information or a successor operator would result in permit revocation <br /> at the January 1992 Board Meeting. Mr. Johnson and Staff answered <br /> questions from the Board, regarding bond amount and site and permit <br /> conditions. <br />