Laserfiche WebLink
Page three <br />Since March of 1993, the New Elk Mine has had 50 inspector days <br />resulting in the sixteen referenced NOVs. Nine of these NOVs are related <br />to hydrology while the remaining six are for general performance <br />standards. Basin's review of the NOVs has classified them into three <br />general categories including failure to maintain permitted facilities (9 <br />NOVs), failure to construct facilities which were permitted (2 NOVs), and <br />permit deficiencies as a result of policy changes (5 NOVs). Many of the <br />NOVs are related to items which were permitted and/or maintained by the <br />previous owner of the property (prior to 1991) and inspected by the <br />Division. <br />Basin also contends that the number and complexity of the violations <br />was compounded by Y.he Office of Surface Mining (OSM) oversight inspection <br />and time frame duri~iy which most of tha i7OVs weie written. In some <br />cases, NOVS were written by different inspectors for similar items. An <br />example of this is NOV C-93-058 which is for failure to maintain or route <br />disturbed drainage through a sediment system, one culvert, three ditches <br />and one berm which all could have been included into NOVs C-93-035, C-93- <br />036, or C-93-037. Many of the NOVs had to be modified following <br />submittal of specific information which existed in various files. An <br />example of this is NOV C-93-42 for failure to conduct hydrologic <br />monitoring, 90 percent of which was subsequently provided to the Division <br />resulting in a modification of the NOV. In other cases, changes in the <br />interpretation of the regulations without notification to Basin caused <br />NOVs to be written. An example of this is NOV C-93-034 for failure to <br />maintain signs and markers which exist on the property for many years but <br />now the requirement is such that two adjacent disturbance markers need to <br />be visible from any given point on the boundary. This unorganized method <br />of NOV issuance has caused Basin to expend extensive time and effort to <br />determine appropriate responses which resulted in vacation of one NOV (C- <br />93-064), modification of several NOVS, and abatement/termination of all <br />NOVs. <br />Basin contends that this elevated inspection activity and number of <br />NOVs is not the result of the overall compliance level of the operation, <br />but of the new political and enforcement directive of the OSM and the <br />Division as discussed in the felicwiny- section. <br />3. ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT <br />With the change of the Presidential Administration, increased <br />attention is being given to environmental concerns. In addition, the OSM <br />has recently been under attack from various environmental groups to <br />review the effectiveness of State programs which have been implemented to <br />control pollutant discharges. Particularly in the State of Colorado, <br />this attack has been the result of the Summitville and Mid-Continent mine <br />site environmental degradation and bond forfeiture. The State and <br />Federal Governments are now responsible for these sites which involve <br />multi-million dollar cleanup activities. Because of these two <br />incidences, the entire mining community as well as the Division's coal <br />regulatory program are under scrutiny. As a result, the number of <br />enforcement actions issued by the Division for the coal program has <br />