My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL55959
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL55959
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:40:54 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:57:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/12/1996
To
DMG
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.
/
2
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
::. <br />iiiiii i ii iii iiii iii <br />999 <br />1429 Vine St. #2 <br />Denver, CO 80206 <br />November 8, 1996 <br />~ECEIVEC3 <br />Susan J. McCannon <br />coal Program supervisor NOV 7 2 1996 <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman St . , Room 215 prv~ain„ ~~ N,ineiais ~ Neology <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Dear Ms. McCannon, <br />Thank you for your October 25, 1996 letter in response to my <br />October 8, 1996 Citizen's Complaint and October 16, 1996 <br />follow-up letter. <br />Your letter stated that "citizen complaints are assigned high <br />priority when received, and we always endeavor to respond as <br />quickly as possible." Unfortunately, contacting me the evening <br />before an inspection does not reflect a high priority for <br />citizen's rights. As I mentioned previously, I am a taxpayer and <br />cannot take a day off from work without sufficient notice. This <br />should have been obvious and your office should have either <br />assigned another available inspector or contacted Mr. Berry while <br />he was in the field. <br />Your letter also states my complaint was fully investigated and <br />my concern addressed. Mr. Berry's report mentions that a proper <br />Permit Identification sign was located at the Sanborn Creek Mine <br />entrance. He does not mention whether there was a blasting <br />warning sign also located at the mine entrance (a legal <br />requirement). He implies there was not since the basting warning <br />sign was removed from the road barrier and posted at the mine <br />entrance. Mr. Berry writes that no violations were issued as a <br />result of this inspection. <br />It is my understanding of SMCRA that inspectors are legally <br />obligated to write Notices of Violation for all violations. Not <br />having a blasting warning sign posted at a mine entrance is a <br />violation of SMCRA and should have been cited. <br />I realize the violation would probably resulted in the same <br />action. However, this does not abrogate your agency's <br />requirement to obey and enforce the law. If inspectors allow <br />operators to rectify violations without being issued NOVS, there <br />is no public record of the violations and no way for citizens to <br />monitor a mines's violation of SMCRA. In addition, this type of <br />behavior establishes a pattern whereby potentially costly <br />violations are resolved informally without penalty. <br />Please inform me whether not having a Blasting Warning sign at a <br />mine entrance is indeed a violation of SMCRA and, if it is, why <br />no violation was issued. 2 would also appreciate an explanation <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.