Laserfiche WebLink
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-105 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-105 was issued to Kaiser Steel Resources <br />at the Colorado Coal Mine No. 1 for: <br />(1) "Failure to display mine/permit sign at each entrance <br />to the permit area from the public roads; and <br />(2) Failure to clearly mark the perimeter of the permit <br />area for surface coal mining activities." <br />Shawn Smith, representing the Division of Minerals and Geology, <br />said the mine identification sign was knocked down where the west <br />permit area boundary crosses the public road west of the <br />reclaimed pit area. Perimeter boundaries were not clearly marked <br />along the north, west and south sides of the permit area. <br />Jerry Koblitz and Michael Keegan, representing Kaiser Steel <br />Resources, emphasized that the signs were there. Vandalism is a <br />big problem at the mine site. Vandals had knocked the mine <br />identification sign down, although it was setting near the base <br />of the post, and they had shot through the perimeter markers. <br />With respect to the perimeter markers, some of the markers were <br />in place. However, the inspectors did not know what to look for <br />to identify the markers. CCMC representatives were aware of the <br />sign problem before the NOV was issued and they had ordered new <br />signs. They were installed on July 9, 1993, two days after the <br />NOV was served. Had they not been with Division inspectors at <br />another mine site, the signs would have been installed earlier. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $250.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $500.00 <br />Seriousness <br />The operator felt there should be no penalty for seriousness. <br />All but one identification sign was in place. The out of place <br />sign was there, it was just knocked down. Perimeter markers were <br />in place, although some were missing. The mine site has been <br />entirely reclaimed. All that remains is reclaimed rangeland. <br />There is no danger or potential for danger at the site. If <br />anything they feel that the site is safer than the surrounding <br />abandoned mines. <br />Based on the information presented in the assessment conference, <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. It represents a low level of <br />seriousness. If it were only the knocked down identification <br />sign being considered I might recommend the penalty be reduced, <br />but the perimeter markers are important to delineate the permit <br />