Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> TO: Mike Long <br /> FROM: Sandy Browns <br /> DATE: January 25, 964 <br /> RE: Mid-Continent Resources <br /> Recommendation to Vacate NOV's C-93-108, C-93-109 and <br /> C-937130 <br /> The assessment conference for Mid-Contintent Resources was <br /> continued on January 11, 1994. Tony Waldron and Larry Routten <br /> represented the Division and Diane Delany and Dean Massey were <br /> representing Mid-Continent Resources. I an recommending the <br /> above listed NOV's be vacated as discussed below. <br /> NOV C-93-108 <br /> NOV C-93-108 was issued for "Failure to provide ownership and <br /> control information for all owners and controllers of the mine <br /> operation". Larry Routten issued the NOV on July 8, 1993. He <br /> explained the NOV was issued becasue Mid-Continent Resources <br /> failed to provide ownership and control information for Pitkin <br /> Iron Corporation as required by Rule 2.03.4(3) and (4) . These <br /> rules require that the permit include information regarding "each <br /> person who owns or controls the applicatn under the definition of <br /> 'owned and controlled' in 1.04(83a) . Rule 1.04(83a) defines <br /> ownership and control as "any other relationship which gives one <br /> person authorship directly or indirectly to determine the manner <br /> in which an applicant, an operator, and other intity conducts <br /> surface coal mining operations". <br /> Pitkin Iron Corporation administers the payroll and workman's <br /> compensation coverage for the employees at the mine. As such the <br /> Division contends that Pitkin Iron fits the definition. By <br /> virtue of administering the payroll, Pitkin Iron Corporation had <br /> a financial interest in the surface coal mining operations and <br /> could determine whether or not surface coal mining operations <br /> would continue. Incidently, many of the officers of MCR and <br /> Pitkin Iron Corporation appear to be the same. Robert Delany, an <br /> officer of MCR, signed as Vice-President for Pitkin Iron <br /> Corporation. <br /> MCR contested the violation. They claimed that Pitkin Iron <br /> Corporation was a contractor to Mid-Continent Resources. MCR <br /> contracted Pitkin because MCR had lost their workmen's <br /> compensation coverage. They submitted a copy of the Service and <br /> Equipment Rental Agreement between MCR and Pitkin. Pitkin bills <br /> MCR on a monthly basis for their services. MCR representatives <br /> argued there are many contracotrs on site. They are not <br /> considered owners and controllers. They have no decision making <br /> authority for the surface coal mining operations. They are <br /> contracted to do a specific service. <br /> MCR further argued that there is no application pending, and <br /> there is no permit. It was revoked August 26, 1992. Citing <br /> regulations pertaining to a pending application or permit is <br />