ENFORCE37198 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DUFFORD &~ BROWN. P.C. Mr. Michael B. Long, Director August 4, 1993 Page 2 Several other NOVS were issued to EFMC as a result of the inspection on April 9-10, 1993. EFMC promptly began abatement actions for those as well, and the Division granted extensions of the abatement period for a couple of them. EFMC did not think it was necessary to request an extension for NOV No. C-93-050 at that time because it believed that abatement was complete well before the original deadline of May 12. About two weeks after the deadline, the Division conducted a partial inspec*_ion of the hate. CredK ifine and Santa Fe loadout areas on May 25 and 28, 1993. The inspection report notes EFMC's progress in correcting the other NOVS and the extensions granted for some. The report states that the "mine ID signs" were posted "at the mine site," and that the perimeter markers and topsoil sign were installed as required by NOV No. C-93-050. Since the NOV cited mine and permit identification signs as missing only from the Santa Fe loadout areas, the May inspection indicated that the Division acknowledged full abatement of the NOV. This was consistent with EFMC's belief that the NOV was abated, which it had no reason to question until June 10, 1993. The Division and OSM inspected the Mine and loadout areas again on June 9-10, 1993. This inspection reviewed all of the NOVs which had been issued since April 12, including No. C-93-050. The progress toward abatement of all the NOVS was noted. Two of them were terminated and two others were modified during the inspection. Regarding NOV No. C-93-050, the inspectors observed that the perimeter and topsoil markers were all installed properly. They also acknowledged that the identification signs at each of the four entrances to the Santa Fe loado~!t areas here installed, but noted some incorrect information. Based on this, the Division issued the Cessation Order for failure to abate the signs portion of the NOV by the due date of May 12, 1993. The Order was issued at 2:30 p.m. with an abatement deadline of 5:00 p.m. the same day. EFMC became aware of the need for additional information on the signs shortly before 2:30 p.m. and corrected them immediately. The Order was terminated that afternoon. The signs at the entrances to Loadout No. 1 had all of the required information, including the current telephone number for EFMC's Denver office. (You will note that OSM used the Denver telephone in its report of the June 10 inspection.) The signs at the entrances to Loadout No. 2 had EFMC's name and