My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC01667
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC01667
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:56:50 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:01:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1979075
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
3/30/1992
Doc Name
IMPROPER COMPLIANCE CITATION DENOTED ON I&E INSPECTION REPORT FOR CHAMBERS PIT M-79-075
From
ELAM CONSTRUCTION INC
To
MLRD
Inspection Date
2/13/1992
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.
/
3
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 />"On the North Western part of the permit area large piles of <br />wrecked automobiles, trucks 5 buses were noted. Operator was <br />notified that such pile is not considered mine waste and must be <br />removed or have that portion of the permit area removed from the <br />permit by submitting an amendment to the Division." <br />This issue was then listed for corrective action with a compliance <br />date of 5/13/92. <br />Contention <br />The automobiles referenced by Mr. Keffelew are located in the area <br />which is designated for Stage 2 mining. This area is at present <br />unaffected by activities related to mining. This area will not be <br />impacted by mining activities any time in the near future. <br />1. Mr. Keffelew indicated that the automobiles should be removed <br />because the state (MLRD) might inherit a reclamation liability which <br />would include removal of the vehicles. However, since the area has <br />not, and will not be affected by mining within the foreseeable future, <br />we maintain that the Division would not inherit any associated <br />liability. The state (MLRD) is charged with reclaiming only those <br />lands which are 1) subject to reclamation bond forfeiture AND 2) have <br />been affected by mining activities. It is inappropriate to assume <br />that the Division would be required to reclaim lands unaffected by <br />mining. <br />2. Elam Construction operates at this site per a lease agreement with <br />the landowner for the purpose of sand b gravel mining. The agreement <br />does not exclude the landowner from exercising other land uses. The <br />storage of the automobiles does not conflict with current or near <br />future mining and reclamation activities. The automobiles mentioned <br />in Mr. Keffelew's report are not the property of Elam Construction. <br />Nothing in the Mined Land Reclamation Act precludes the rights of a <br />landowner as to exercising multiple leases or exercising the right of <br />other land uses within a permitted site. <br />3. Nothing in the Mined Land Reclamation Act or the Mineral Rules and <br />Regulations prohibits the type of activity which Mr. Keffelew denotes <br />as a compliance issue. <br />~~~oH. wc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.