My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE25938
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE25938
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:05 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:09:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/12/1997
Doc Name
NOV CV-97-013 BOWIE 2 MINE PN C-96-083 BOWIE RESOURCES LTD
From
DMG
To
BOWIE RESOURCES LTD
Violation No.
CV1997013
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.
/
4
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
schedule must be delivered to all residences that are located within one-half mile of the <br />blasting site. The blast of July 18, 1997 was located within 1200 feet of the Rugh <br />dwelling and the Martinez dwelling, as evidenced by the information gathered during the <br />Division's inspection of the Bowie No. 2 minesite on July 21 and 24, 1997. The <br />abatement for this part of the violation involves sending copies of the blasting schedule to <br />those residences that initially did not receive such a notification. The two residences <br />cited, the Rugh residence and the Martinez residence, may not be the only residences that <br />need to be notified. <br />Rule 4.08.4(3) is the third regulation that was violated. This rule requires that each person <br />within the permit area and each person who lives or regularly works within one-half mile <br />of the blasting site must receive notification of the meaning of the blasting signals. The <br />review of the blasting notification records does not show that the Rugh family or the <br />Martinez family received such notifications. In order to abate this part of the Notice of <br />Violation, appropriate blasting signal notifications must be sent to the Rugh and Martinez <br />families, as well as any other persons who have not been notified accordingly. <br />The fourth rule cited is 4.08.5(3), (5) and (16). The Division's review of the blasting <br />records shows that none of the records contain the blaster's certification license number, <br />the wind direction and approximate velocity and the number of persons in the blasting <br />crew. It is too late to alter the present blasting records, so no abatement is possible. <br />However, all future blasting records must contain this information. <br />Because of the issues raised with this NOV, the Division requests additional information <br />in order to determine the full extent of the problem of blasting notification. The Division <br />requests that Bowie No. 2 submit a map which shows the locations of residences or <br />dwellings within one-half mile of the Bowie No. 2 permit area, and an accompanying list <br />which shows the names and addresses of all residents and owners of such dwellings. The <br />submittal of this information has been included in the NOV as the third abatement step. In <br />this way, the Division can verify that abatement steps one and two have been complied <br />with. <br />Also, because of the information provided in the blasting records, there appears to be a <br />need to revise two pages of the permit application. On page 2.05-40 and 2.05-41of the <br />permit application, reference is made to the distance from the blasting site to the nearest <br />structure, dwelling, public building, school, church, community or institutional building <br />as being about 2300 feet. However, two blasting records ,for May ] 3, 1997 and July 18, <br />1997, state that the distance from the blasting site to the neazest structure is 900 feet. <br />Also, it appears that blasting has occurred within 1200 feet of the house occupied by the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.