Laserfiche WebLink
~' <br />Oxbow Carbon and Minerals, Inc. <br />P.O. Box 535 <br />Somerset, CO 81434 <br />C-81-022 <br />Sanborn Creek Mme <br />10/16/96 <br />Citizens complaint inspection <br />Mitchell S. Rollings, OSM, 370 <br />Dave Berry, DMG <br />Walter Wright, Oxbow <br />Tom Mderson, Oxbow <br />OSM received this complaint, CC96-140-001, on October 9, 1996. I first learned of it upon <br />return from vacation on the evening of October 15. DFD had arranged with DMG for me to <br />attend the inspection since I would be in the area anyway. Dave Beny notified the complainant of <br />the inspection on October 15, and told him someone from OSM would attend. The complainant <br />did not attend the inspection. <br />Oxbow had posted mine ID and blasting warning signs at the eastern access to the mine area. The <br />blasting sign was posted at a point 850 feet east of the approximate permit boundary. During the <br />inspection, Oxbow moved the blasting warning sign to the permit boundary where the mine ID <br />sign was posted. OSM Directive INE-13 requires documentation of conditions that constitute a <br />violation of SMCRA, but no violation is issued by OSM. Whereas Oxbow had the required signs <br />posted, the location at which the blasting warning sign was posted actually gave better <br />notification to the public than at the permit boundary, and the operator moved the blasting <br />warning sign to the permit boundary during the inspection thus abating the technical violation, I <br />did not issue a TDN to DMG or a Federal enforcement action. <br />While I believe the posting of a blasting warning sign at a point other than the permit boundary is <br />a technical violation of SMCRA, I also believe, in this case, that requiring the operator to move <br />the sign to the permit boundary resulted in less safe conditions. Oxbow is the surface land owner <br />in the area of the road closed sign. Therefore, I encouraged Oxbow to repost a blasting warning <br />sign near the road closed sign and stated that SMCRA jurisdiction would not apply. Oxbow has <br />met the SMCRA requirements for signs at the permit boundary; any additional posting of warning <br />signs would be viewed as additional warning provided by Oxbow the landowner. <br />