Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OE MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depznmenl of Nawral Resources <br />1313 Sherman SI., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 13031 866-3567 <br />PAX:~3031832-8106 <br />October 3, 1994 <br />TO: File <br />FM: Shawn E. Smith <br />A~ <br />~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />governor <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />Exec uo ve Director <br />Re: NOV C-94-022: Recommendation: Issues to Consider M;chael B. Long <br />TwiII P1IIe9 M1IIe N0.2 (C-83-058) Division Duenor <br />Dear Assessment Officer: <br />NOV C-94-022 was issued to the Twin Pines Mine for failure to <br />maintain the certificate of insurance and its renewal in full force <br />as per Regulation 2.03.9(2). <br />History: There have been no NOV's issued to Twin Pines Mine No.2 <br />in the last 12 months. <br />Seriousness: The extent of the damage was administrative in <br />nature. <br />Duration: The lapse in an active policy was between May 26, 1994 <br />and August 10, 1994. Larry White; resident agent, was notified <br />verbally following the complete inspection on July 20, 1994. The <br />mine office was notified via a letter dated July 21, 1994 from the <br />Division of the record insufficiency. Prior to this time, Twin <br />Pines Investment had requested a renewal quote from Putnam and <br />Associates (the underwriter) for liability insurance. A letter <br />from Putnam Associates, dated July 13, 1994 was sent as a response <br />to the mine office. The quote indicated that the renewal fee would <br />be raised significantly from the 1993 amount due to the mines' <br />change in status from active to inactive. The mine contacted the <br />insurance company on July 28, 1994 to begin renewal action. A <br />check dated July 30, 1994 was sent from Twin Pines for $770.00 <br />(down payment) to Putnam Associates. In the interim, Twin Pines <br />had considered alternative bids from other companies prior to the <br />decision to retain Putnam Associates as the carrier. Due to a move <br />of Putnam Associate's corporate offices, the renewal was delayed by <br />several weeks. The renewal was finally put into the record on <br />August 10, 1994 by Putnam Associates. <br />The duration was from May 26, to August 10, 1994. The extent of <br />potential and actual damage to the public or environment was low. <br />The extent to which enforcement was obstructed by this violation <br />was low. <br />