My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC26227
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC26227
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:25:42 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 10:04:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
10/11/1991
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO & DISCREPANCIES IN THE 9-19-91 INSPECTION REPORT FOR DANIELS SAND PIT 2 YOUR FN M-73-00
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
MLR
Inspection Date
9/19/1991
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.
/
6
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
Page 5 <br />October 11, 1991 <br />Inspection report <br />File no.: M-73-007 <br />The inspection date was 9-19-91; the report was post marked on 10-5-91. <br />COMMENT: Rule 8.1(5)(c) states "Within ten (10) days (note: this <br />refers to the date of inspection) is mailed to or filed at: (i.) The <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division; and (ii) The mine office, or other <br />suitable location designated by the operator." <br />We recognize that your staff is short handed and under a hiring <br />freeze, but we also want to point out that this rule is there for a <br />purpose, namely, to notify the operator in a timely fashion about the <br />results of an inspection. Unfortunately, the rule has not been complied <br />with in this instance or other instances we are familiar with. <br />We recommend the Division follow this rule and possibly develop a <br />new procedure for preparing and sending out inspection reports. When <br />problems are noted in the inspection report there are often deadlines <br />that must be met to avoid a violation. If the operator is not informed <br />exactly of what is expected in a timely fashion it can be difficult for <br />him to meet pour deadlines. If he is expected to correct a problem a <br />month after the inspection, but it takes two weeks to be informed <br />exactly of the nature of the problem and what is expected, effectively <br />his time to correct the problem is reduced to two weeks. It is <br />suggested that deadlines for correction, if stated in the inspection <br />report, be based upon the date the inspection report is sent to the <br />operator and not the date the inspection is performed. <br />RESPONSES TO PROBLEMS NOTED ON PAGE 3 OF INSPECTION <br />Problem 1: The statement that the permit requires reclamation of a <br />minimum of 2 acres per year is in error. The current permit does not <br />require that. Transit Mix Concrete will conduct the reclamation in <br />accordance with the permitted plan. <br />Problem 2: The statement that topsoil stockpiles are eroding away <br />is not exactly correct. Most topsoil stockpiles show little erosion and <br />are covered with some kind of vegetation, although i[ is admitted the <br />growth is mostly dense weeds. Nevertheless, it has been well documented <br />that weeds can provide an important function in protecting soils and <br />this is one of the functions of weedy species in the early stages of the <br />natural successional process leading to a more permanent vegetation. In <br />fact, it is our understanding that a reclamation plan for one of the oil <br />shale operations actually encourages weed growth prior to seeding with <br />more permanent species. Furthermore, where any erosion is occurring the <br />soil is being deposited on land that will be topsoiled and revegetated <br />anyway. However, because there is a requirement to protect topsoil <br />stockpiles, Transit Mix agrees to take action to seed those stockpiles <br />that will not be utilized this winter. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.