From 1931 through 1981, debtor owned and operated a 216-acre limestone quarry in the state of Colorado that provided limestone for its open-hearth furnace production of steel and iron products. Debtor eventually converted its open-hearth manufacturing process to electric arc furnace melting of scrap metal, which does not require large amounts of limestone. Debtor leased the quarry to a third party from 1981 to 1991, at which time, all mining activity ceased. After filing a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, debtor filed a motion to abandon the quarry, under 11 U.S.C. § 554(a), as property that is burdensome or of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate. The Colorado Mined Land Board ("Colorado") objected to abandonment of the quarry, claiming such action would be improper under the standard announced in MidIantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494 (1986), limiting a debtor's right to abandon property where abandonment would contravene state laws designed to protect public health and safety from identified hazards. Colorado asserted that the proposed abandonment fell within the Midlantic limitation because it would violate Colorado state law requiring mine operators to reclaim mined property. Both sides estimated the cost of reclaiming the quarry property, and debtor's estimate of $222,662 was deemed most accurate by the court, which thereby fixed that as the amount of Colorado's unsecured prepetition claim. The court then found, based on that reclamation liability, debtor had no realizable equity in the quarry property. However, the court also found that there were no hazardous or toxic substances stored on the property, and that the only quarry hazard that would not be remedied by forfeiture of previously provided reclamation bonds was a general presence of unconsolidated and unstable rock. As a result, the court concluded that Colorado had failed to prove either that any existing hazard at the quarry site presented an inevitable and imminent harm to the public, or that abandonment of the quarry would aggravate existing conditions or create peril at the quarry. Therefore, application of the Midlantic exception was not warranted under the circumstances of the case. Debtor's motion to abandon the quarry property was granted.