PERMFILE125113

• Permit No: C1981040
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/11/2001
• Section_Exhibit Name: EXHIBIT 1 THRU EXHIBIT 12
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

•

~ h~~.~- ~
5 iATE OF 001 OHAf>O im nnmt It. i AMM ~•••v~~~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
D. Monte Pascoe, EH ecu tive O~rector

MIIVEU LAND RE(:LAMA'I'IUN
423 Centennial Building, 7373 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. [phone]
u
October 21, 1981
T0: File No. C-090-81 - Peacock Coal
FROM: Mike Long
David C. Shelton
Director
RE: Proposed Civil Penalty for Cessation Order 001 and
Resultant Violations
A. History:
Peacock Coal Company was issued a Cessation Order in August of 1981 for mining with-
out a valid permit. Two Cessation Orders had previously been issued to Peacock,
but operations were allowed to continue on the premise that an active and
aggressive effort was being pursued by the operator to obtain a permit. In
addition, on the ground compliance with the Rules and Regulations was required.
An application was received on February 17, 1981. Zt was deemed complete at
that time, but Mr. Price was informed by mail that it was by no means adequate
an d. that the required information mutt be submitted by August, 1981. The
required information was not submitted. The August inspection of the mine
site revealed numerous performance standard violations of The Colorado Surface
Coal Mining Reclamation Act. In light of these violations and the fact that
the necessary permit application information was not submitted as required, a
Cessation Order was issued.
Since adequate opportunity was afforded Peacock to obtain the necessary permit
and they did not, the Division feels the maximum penalty is called for.
History Total: 51,750.00
u
B. Seriousness:
This section of the Regulations contemplates two categories of violations; an
event versus an obstruction. In this case, operatin_q without a valid permit
constitutes an obstruction toward the enforcement of the performance standard
requirement of the Act. Since the violation is considered an obstruction,
5.04.5(2)(b)(i) was not considered in the assessment for seriousness.
Up to $2,750.00 may be assessed for seriousness. For purposes of this assessment,
two primary criteria were considered; extent of obstruction and actual or
potential obstruction. Since two criteria were considered, the total of
$1,750.00 was divided by two and equal proportions assigned to each criteria
as follows:
I) Extent of obstruction (up to $875.00)
a) small 5291.66
b) medium 483.32
c) large 875.00