Laserfiche WebLink
notifying the Division that the NOV had been abated. I see no <br />reason for penalizing them $22,200.00 for an honest mistake where <br />there is no imminent environmental harm, when the missing <br />information is immediately added to the sign and the Division <br />left them with the impression that the NOV had been abated. <br />I agree with Mr. Fanyo's argument. The relevant part of Rule <br />5.03.2(3) states: <br />If the person who is issued a NOV fails to abate the <br />violation within the abatement period as originally fixed or <br />as subsequently extended,..., for good cause shown and upon <br />written finding to that effect, the authorized <br />representative shall immediately order a cessation of the <br />surface mining and reclamation operations or of the portion <br />thereof relevant to the violation. <br />i conclude there is no good cause for a Cessation Order because <br />the telephone number and address were mistakenly left off the <br />signs. The numbers are on a nearby sign at the Santa Fe loadout <br />No. 1. Furthermore, the Joe Dudash left EFMC with the mistaken <br />impression that the NOV had been abated. The missing numbers <br />were immediately included on the signs when the operator became <br />aware of the mistake. I recommend that the CO be vacated. <br />I don't think it is necessary to extend the abatement deadline <br />since the mistake was corrected so quickly. If an inspector <br />observes a problem at a mine site, and it is fixed before the end <br />of the inspection, no enforcement action is taken. Is this still <br />the policy? <br />I think the issuance of this CO points out the need to terminate <br />NOV's and to issue termination notices as soon as possible. <br />Ideally, this NOV should have been terminated, or at least an <br />update of the abatement should have been noted, during the May <br />inspection especially since the operator had sent in an abatement <br />letter. It also would have been helpful to have a summary of the <br />NOV status at .the end of the May inspection report. Although <br />several of the outstanding NOV's were addressed in the comments <br />section of the May inspection report, there was not a summary of <br />the outstanding NOV's in the enforcement section. It seems to me <br />that everyone thought NOV C-93-050 was abated. <br />~~h~..Q~ri- <br />