ENFORCE30705 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION CO C-93-031 Cessation Order C-93-031 was issued for "Failure to perform abatement work for NOV's C-92-013, C-92-020, C-92-021, C-92-028 and C-92-029." Mr. Joe Dudash, representing the Division, explained that this CO was issued to Trinidad Basin Mining Company for failure to abate five NOV's that were issued in July, August and October of 1992. The abatements had been extended until February 15,1993. On April 6, 1993 the Cessation Order was issued. The proposed civil penalty was issued on May 6, 1993. At the April 22, 1993 Board Meeting, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board revoked Permit No. C-81-048 for the Trinidad Basin Strip Mine and forfeited the bond. Trinidad Basin Mining Company, represented by Vance Mills, Frank Bartlett, Greg Lewicki and Gary Hanish provided a historical perspective of events at the mine. Of particular importance is the fact that the mineral and surface rights were severed several years ago. They lost their mining lease, and the surface was sold in a foreclosure sale. The purchaser of the surface property developed the area for residential lots. According to the operator they did not have control over the permit area and they were only allowed limited access to the property making maintenance difficult. Additionally, the development of the residential lots conflicted with the required maintenance of the mine site. Compounding the operator's frustrations regarding access was that a bond release request had been unsuccessful. In January, 1993, Mr. Mills wrote a letter to the Division requesting that the bond be forfeited. The purpose of this assessment conference was to determine whether the Cessation Order was appropriate and to discuss the proposed civil penalty. I feel the Cessation Order was appropriate. There were five unabated NOV's. The CO was issued before the Board took action on the permit revocation and bond forfeiture. Trinidad Basin Mining Company did not disagree. However with respect to the proposed civil penalty there was considerable more discussion. The proposed civil penalty was $112,500.00. This was based on: 30 days x 5 NOV's x $750.00/day = $112,500.00 The Division issued the civil penalty according to the process outlined in Rule 5.04.3, 30 days after the Co was issued. They felt that because the CO had been issued prior to the permit revocation and bond forfeiture hearing, the civil penalty process had to be completed. The operator objected to the civil penalty. Since the permit had been revoked and the bond forfeited, they felt all obligations to the site had been absolved.