My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE20085
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE20085
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:24:22 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:43:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
11/19/2000
Doc Name
ANSWER TO APPLEANTsS NOTICE OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF REASONS
Violation No.
TD1993020370005TV3
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.
/
36
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
subsidence, asserted DMG, Basin had not violated the State coal <br />mining regulations at State Rule 2.05.6(6) as alleged in the TDN. <br />As stated by DMG on pages two and three of its response to the <br />TDN: <br />When the mine operator ceased development of the First <br />North Main, it began developing plans for the <br />construction of its Third North Main, which would <br />parallel First North Main, but which would be situated <br />to the Southeast of First North Main by about 7500 <br />feet. These plans were approved by the Division in May <br />of 1988. <br />Because monitoring of surface monuments had yet to <br />begin over First North Main, the Division required <br />monitoring of the room and pillar operation over Third <br />North Main, for the purposes of demonstrating proof of <br />the permittee's conclusions regarding surface <br />subsidence effects (Rule 2.05.6(6)(b)(ii)). Eight <br />monitoring points were established along a line <br />perpendicular to the direction of the advancement of <br />Third North Main. This line of monuments existed <br />within the Purgatoire River AVF. Surveying of these <br />monuments occurred during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd <br />quarters of 1988, per 2.05.6(6)(C)(i)(D). On August <br />25, 1988, the Division reviewed the results of the <br />three surveys and concurred that significant settlement <br />over the Third North Main had not been observed. This <br />Division determination concurred with the operator's <br />original predictions regarding protection of the AVF <br />from material damages and diminution of reasonably <br />foreseeable use, as described in Rule 2.05.6(6)(b)(ii). <br />As Such, the Division believes. that Basin Resources, <br />Ihc., is currently in compliance with Colorado Law and <br />the Rules, and further believes enforcement action <br />under Rule 2.05.6(6) is unwarranted. <br />With regard to the alleged violation of State Rule 4.20 in <br />the TDN, DMG denied that Basin was violating this rule when the <br />TDN was issued. State Rule 4.20 is a performance standard <br />provision regarding subsidence control during underground coal <br />mining operations. State Rule 4.20.1 is a general performance <br />26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.