My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE25970
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE25970
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:06 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:10:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/24/1991
Doc Name
MLRD RESPONSE TO TDL 91-02-370-003 TV4 NEW ELK MINE C-81-012
From
OSM
To
MLRD
Violation No.
TD1991020370003TV4
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
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />United States Department of the Interior <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING <br />RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT <br />SUITE 310 <br />625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. <br />ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 <br />April 22, 1991 <br />~_ <br />~~_ <br />-~ ~ <br />In Rcply Refa To: <br />RtCci'd` <br />CERTIFIED MAZE - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED <br />P 965 799 371 ppR 2 41991 <br />Mr. Steven G. Renner, Coal Program Supervisor Mined Land <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />Department of Natural Resources Reclamation Division <br />215 Centennial Building <br />1313 Shezman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: MLRD Response to TDL 91-02-370-003 (TV4); New Elk Mine, C-81-012 <br />Dear Mr. Renner: <br />The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), <br />Albuquerque Field Office (AFO), received the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Division (MEAD) telefaxed response dated April 1, 1991, to the Ten-Day <br />Letter (TDL), 91-02-370-003, TV4. Also received was the follow-up <br />response in the form of a letter dated April 10, 1991, that provided <br />additional information for review. AFO has reviewed the responses and <br />has made the following determinations: <br />1 of 4 - AFO understood the initial MLRD response to be a request <br />for an additional 10 days to review the permitting procedure and <br />investigate the record with regard to the underdrain design. The <br />second MLRD response provided documents from the permit regarding <br />the underdrain design and an evaluation of this design by Mr. Jim <br />Pendleton. AFO has reviewed the information submitted and has <br />determined the response to be inappropriate. The TDL cited MLRD <br />regulation 4.09.2(2) and stated designs for the subdrainage filter <br />system are lacking. This regulation requires that a filter system <br />be designed and constructed using standard geotechnical engineering <br />methods to ensure the proper function of the rock underdrain <br />system. The information submitted by MLRD addresses the <br />configuration of the underdrain, but nowhere in the documents can a <br />design for the filter system be found. Mr. Pendleton's review of <br />the permitting procedure and record does not address the filter <br />system either. Field observations indicate that a filter system is <br />being used by the operator. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.