My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL51470
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL51470
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:37:43 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 6:49:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/15/1996
Doc Name
CITIZENS COMPLAINT CC96-140-001 OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS SANBORN CRK MINE PN C-81-022 2ND RESPONSE
From
OSM
To
DENNIS SHORT
Permit Index Doc Type
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
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.
/
4
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
._r- <br />`'- ~ - • <br />;;'ESTERN SUPPGi CE~aiEi; <br />96 FlOV t 2 PM I ~ 20 <br />Mitchell .I~h113~iY~`d~s <br />Regulatory Program Specialist <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 <br />Denver, CO 113% So ~o ~- <br />Dear Mr. Rollings, <br />Denni~hort <br />1429 Vine Street, #2 <br />Denver, CO 80206 <br />November 7, 1996 <br />i appreciate your October 28, 1996 letter accompanying the <br />inspection report in response to my October 8, 1996 citizens <br />complaint about the Oxbow Mine. Unfortunately, your explanation <br />of the inspection has left me more confused and concerned. <br />You agreed with me that "the posting of a blasting warning sign <br />at a point other than the permit boundary is a technical <br />violation of SMCRA...." Please explain to me what a technical <br />violation of SMCRA is in comparison to a violation of SMCRA. If <br />there is no difference, my understanding is the inspector must, <br />by law, issue a Notice of Violation. <br />if a NOV had been issued, I'm sure the result would have been the <br />same - moving the sign to the permit boundary. However, this <br />does not abrogate your or the mine operator's responsibility to <br />obey the law. If inspectors allow operators to rectify <br />violations without being issued NOVs, there is no public record <br />of the violations and no way for citizens to monitor a mine's <br />breaches'of.SMCRA. In addition, this type of behavior <br />establishes a pattern whereby potentially costly violations are <br />resolved informally without penalty. <br />You also felt the public was better served by allowing Oxbow to <br />re-post a sign at the road boundary; that removing the sign <br />"leaves the public unaware of the danger proceeding past this <br />point." If this is your professional opinion, perhaps OSM should <br />conduct a review of Oxbow's permit to determine if there is a <br />potential for blasting damage outside the permit boundary. <br />slasting is not allowed to cause injury to people or damage <br />property outside a permit boundary. if you feel the public is in <br />danger up to 850 feet outside the permit boundary, you should <br />demand the permit be revised. My insistence that Oxbow obey the <br />law and regulators enforce it should not be blamed for placing <br />the public in danger. <br />Thank you and I look forward to your response. <br />Sincerely; <br />Dennis Short <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.