My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-07-21_REVISION - M1988112
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1992-07-21_REVISION - M1988112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2021 7:32:26 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:34:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/21/1992
Doc Name
MINUTES MLRB
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Minutes, July 2Z-24, 19~ <br />DAFT <br />Subject To Board Approval31 <br />The Board said the Division should at least require a Phase I <br />environmental assessment prior to accepting real-estate as collateral <br />for a bond. They urged the Division to decline acceptance of bc~d <br />forms with which they are not completely satisfied. M;. Stewart <br />suggested that the operator could reaffirm the credibility cf the bond <br />as part of the annual report. <br />Mr. Long briefly discussed a recent influx of problems with Letters of <br />Credit, especially with out-of-state banks. <br />Mr. Renner said that he and Frank Johnson, Assistant AttornEā¢y General, <br />would be discussing this issue during the August 1992 Board Meeting. <br />6. Blueprint for Change <br />- Field Offices <br />- Program Consolidation <br />Mr. Long said the internal reviews and reports regarding these issues <br />have been completed and circulated to the Staff, as well as the Board, <br />for comments. He said comments were received from Staff t,nd a Board <br />Member. Mr. Long said the documents will be forwarded for general <br />comments from the mining industry, other state and local governmental <br />agencies, the public and other constituency groups. <br />Mr. Long said the Division conducted an indepth and thorough study into <br />the field office issue. However, he said no firm recommendations or <br />conclusions were provided in the documents regardirg program <br />consolidation. <br />The issue of program consolidation was discussed during a recent <br />Supervisors Meeting. Mr. Long said the Supervisors' commen~:s, as well <br />as the majority of those provided by the Staff, were in faior of some <br />type of program consolidation. Specifically, they favoreci combining <br />the Minerals and Coal Programs and forming one regulatory program. He <br />said one benefit of program consolidation would be the pro~~ision of a <br />larger resource, at the Division-level, for dealing with cases where <br />major issues are involved, such as Battle Mountain and Summitville. <br />However, Mr. Long said that if this type of program change occurs, each <br />of the Programs' budget will remain separate. <br />Ron Cattany discussed concerns that the CMA has stated, in regard to <br />program consolidation. He suggested that extensive explanations would <br />need to be provided prior to making changes in the Pro~lrams. Mr. <br />Cattany said operators in the hardrock industry have stated concerns <br />that regulatory standards for coal mining would be applied to their <br />operations, if program consolidation occurs. <br />Mr. Long said the Division's Staff, specifically the Supervisors, would <br />ensure that the program-specific standards would not be inappropriately <br />combined and applied in the field. Other states that have :onsolidated <br />coal and non-coal programs were discussed. It was suggested that the <br />Division contact these states for information, regarding thi; issue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.