REV96358 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~: a• JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOP, CO C-87-044 CO C-87-044 was written for conducting surface blasting at the Coal Gulch Mine, in violation of the approved permit No. C-84-067. The operator had been fragmenting oversized boulders, as a portion of stabilizing a landslide debris deposit within the permit area. However, the approved permit application and findings document contain statements specifically disallowing surface blasting at the Coal Gulch mine site. The Cease Order was issued November 2, 1987, as the result of an inspection conducted October 29, 1987. The operator's representative, Mr. Dale Larsen, did not contest that the violation had occurred. In fact, the operator had left a note at the mine site for the inspector reporting that blasting had been conducted. Mr. Larsen requested that the Division reconsider vacation of the cease order, which request had earlier been rejected by the Director. I found that Cease Order No. C-87-044 had been properly issued to Peerless Resources, Inc. The penalty assessment proposed by the Division Assessment Officer was: History 550.00 Seriousness E1,000.00 Fault 5750.00 TOTAL PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY: $1,800.00 The operator's representative, Mr. Dale Larsen, presented comments regarding the proposed penalty assessment. Mr. Larsen addressed himself to the magnitude of the proposed penalty assessments for seriousness and fault. He stated that the operator mistakenly believed that they had been granted permission to conduct surface blasting. In 1985, a cease order had been issued to the operator for conducting surface blasting without a valid exploration permit for blasting operations. The operator had been required to amend their exploration permit to describe the blasting activities, which had been accomplished. Mr. Larsen stated that he mistakenly thought that the exploration amendment approval constituted a separate permit to blast and had not realized that an analogous modification was necessary to their regular operating permit. He observed that they had no idea that they were in violation, as evidenced by the note to the inspector stating that blasting had been conducted. I was persuaded by Mr. Larsen's argument and am amending the assessment for fault to reflect "minimum" negligence (52501, rather than the "maximum" negligence assessment (5750) proposed by the assessment officer. Mr. Larsen also presented comments responding to the Division's proposed civil penalty assessment for seriousness. The Division assessment officer had proposed an assessment reflecting "significant" seriousness (51;0001. Mr. Larsen stated that all blasting had been conducted by a certified, licensed blaster and that no blasts had exceeded 5 pounds of explosive. Further, he observed that a certified and licensed blaster should be capable of protecting the health and safety of the public and that the seriousness of the violation was not significant. I found Mr. Larsen's comments to be persuasive. I am amending the assessment for seriousness to reflect "moderate" seriousness (E500.00), conditioned upon the submission of a written statement from the blaster conducting the blasting operations, verifying Mr. Larsens statements.