My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE23079
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE23079
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:33 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:20:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
MEMO RECOMMENDATION TO VACATE CO C-93-088
From
SANDY BROWN
To
MIKE LONG
Violation No.
CO1993088
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DUFFORD &~ BROWN, P.C. <br />Mr. Michael B. Long, Director <br />August 4, 1993 <br />Page 9 <br />7. There was no risk of harm to the environment or <br />threat to public safety, as the OSM inspection report appears <br />to confirm. In particular, any member of the public noticing a <br />dangerous situation at the loadout areas in the railroad yards <br />likely would have reported it to the Trinidad police or to <br />railroad personnel who regularly use the adjacent rail yards <br />and the spurs in the loadout areas, rather than to EFMC. <br />Taking all these factors into account, there was no good <br />cause shown for issuing a Cessation Order for failure to abate <br />NOV No. C-93-050. Accordingly, the Cessation Order should be <br />vacated because this prerequisite under Rule 5.03.2(3) did not <br />exist. <br />Lacking grounds for a Cessation Order, the appropriate <br />action was to extend the NOV abatement deadline to 5:00 p.m. on <br />June 10, 1993. You will note that such an extension was well <br />within the 90-day maximum period allowed by the rules. It was <br />also clear on June 10 that any failure to abate the NOV was due <br />to inadvertence and not any purposeful noncompliance or attempt <br />to gain an advantage. Had EFMC not complied promptly after the <br />inspectors pointed out the error and granted an extension to <br />the end of that day, then the Division may have had grounds for <br />issuing a failure to abate order. <br />To the extent EFMC has not already done so, it hereby <br />requests an extension of the abatement period for NOV No. <br />C-93-050 to 5:00 p.m. on June 10, 1993. You will note that <br />Rule 5.03.2(2)(b) does not prohibit an extension request after <br />the abatement deadline, so long as the 90-day limit is not <br />exceeded. The good cause for this request is explained above. <br />In conclusion, EFMC requests that Cessation Order No. <br />C-93-0B8 be vacated and the the abatement deadline for NOV No. <br />C-093-050 be extended to 5:00 p.m. on June 10, 1993. <br />Sincerely yours, <br />RLF/kw <br />cc: Daniel Hernandez <br />Joe Dudash / <br />David Berry <br />Sandra Brown <br />Allen Weaver <br />DUFFOJ2D & BROWN, P.C. <br />R~hard L. Fanyo ` <br />0958e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.