Laserfiche WebLink
June 10, 1993. The operator corrected the sign as soon as they <br />became aware of the problem (when the CO was issued). (The CO <br />was not terminated until August 6, 1993.) <br />A notice of proposed civil penalty was issued on June 30, 1993. <br />The amount was $22,200.00. It was calculated using $750.00/day <br />for 28 days (May 12-June 10) us $200.00 for history, $250.00 <br />for seriousness and $750.00 for fault. <br />The assessment conference for CO C-93-088 was held on August 10, <br />1993. I asked Dan Hernandez to explain why the CO was issued. <br />He said the CO was issued because a portion of the NOV had not <br />been abated citing Rule 4.02.2. He further explained that he <br />thought the $750.00/day assessment would be was calculated from <br />the day the CO was issued, not from the abatement deadline. He <br />never intended for the penalty to be so large. He felt the <br />Division should have observed the problem in May. To compensate <br />for the mistake, he suggested that the penalty should be assessed <br />from the May 28 inspection date. He felt that the operator would <br />have added the missing information to the signs then if they had <br />been aware of it. I think Dan's reasoning may be accurate, but <br />it is a purely hypothetical situation. Z can't reassess a fine <br />based on something that might have happened. <br />Rick Fanyo, Alan Weaver and Randy Akre represented Energy Fuels <br />Mining Company. Mr. Fanyo had sent in a letter dated August 4, <br />1993 requesting the CO be vacated on grounds that there was not <br />good cause shown for issuing the CO. Please refer to his letter, <br />a copy is attached. He fully discussed his reasoning in the <br />assessment conference. Of most importance, in my opinion, is <br />that EFMC notified the Division in April that the NOV had been <br />abated. I feel the Division unintentionally abated the NOV <br />during their May inspection. Also, the information was available <br />on the adjacent loadout. <br />In response to the letter and the request for vacation, Dan <br />Hernandez felt there was good cause for a number of reasons. <br />1. The rules require a telephone number and address. <br />2. It is not the Division' responsibility to identify <br />problems at the mine; DMG is not the mine's environmental <br />coordinator. <br />3. There was potential for harm at the site. A railroad <br />representative said during the course of the June l0 inspection <br />that he didn't know who to contact about some gravel that had <br />been placed on the tracks last fall. Evidently, the gravel had <br />been placed there by Rimrock Coal Co., who leased the loadout <br />from Raton Creek. (This discussion between the Railroad <br />representative and Dan was not included in the inspection <br />report.) <br />4. There was a public safety issue. The loadout can be <br />accessed from public streets. <br />I don't feel these reasons justify the issuance of a <br />Cessation Order. The operator was acting on good faith by <br />