GENERAL51470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i United States Department of the Interior 1l: REPLY REFER TO Mr. Dennis Short 1429 Vine Street, #2 Denver, CO 80206 OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING Reclamation and Enforcement 1999 nroadway, Suite 3320 Dcnvcr, Colorado 80202-5733 November 13, 1996 ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III RECEIVED NOV 15 1996 UwlpNn ~i rvunCrd~S 6 la'eolo9Y RE: Citizens Complaint CC96-140-001, Oxbow Carbon and Minerals, Sanborn Creek Mine, Permit C-81-022, Second Response Dear Mr. Short, The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) received your letter dated November 7, 1996, on November 32, 1996. The letter is a request for clarification of actions taken in response to your citizens complaint on the Sanborn Creek T`4ine. I have reviewed your letter and identified three issues in which you appear to wish clarification; a "technical" violation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) versus a violation of SMCRA, required issuance of enforcement actions, and the degree of safety of the approved blasting plan. The word "technical" used in my response to you was not intended to distinguish a degree or level of violation. A violation of SMCRA is a violation of SMCRA. I used that word to acknowledge that while a violation of SMCRA existed, imposed compliance with SMCRA would not necessarily result in a higher degree of safety to the public, which is the essence and purpose of the violated regulation. OSM has an official policy system that, in part, guides inspectors in their duties. As referred to in the inspection report, OSM Directive INE-13 defines for an inspector the instance in which an enforcement action should not be issued for an observed violation. The Directive states, "If a violation is completely abated during an inspection, (a Notice of Violation) should not be issued unless failure to issue (a Notice of Violation) would render the applicable regulation unenforceable" (emphasis added). In this case, the operator had provided the public with a blasting warning by posting a sign as required by Section 4.02.6 of the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining (regulations). The warning sign was along the route of public access to the blasting area but was not located at the entrance to the permit area as required by regulation. The operator was deemed in violation solely because of sign location, not because the public was not notified ofblasting dangers. During the inspection, the operator moved the sign to the permit area entrance thus fulfilling the location requirements. Whereas the operator had completely abated the violation during the inspection and the violation did not constitute significant, imminent public danger, per INE-13 an inspector is not required to issue a Notice of Violation.