My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL32209
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL32209
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:54:54 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:14:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/19/2007
Doc Name
Draft EIS Deer Creek Shaft/E-Seam MDWs Part 2
From
Forest Service
To
DRMs
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
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.
/
49
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
<br />Chapter 6 ' <br />PLAN REVIEW FORMS 2000-204 AND 2000-86 <br />Plan Review Form 2000-204 is submitted to document the completion of a 6-month ' <br />ventilation plan review conducted by regular inspectors and to permit comment by the <br />inspectors on the adequacy of the plan. When the review indicates a deficiency in the <br />respirable dust control portion of the plan, Form 2000-86 should be completed to record , <br />the comments. The MPAS is designed to project 6-month ventilation plan review due <br />dates. Form 2000-204 provides data for the program. The form is an in-house document <br />and is not intended for distribution outside the district or to the public. ' <br />When preparing Form 2000-204 for submittal, the reviewer should record on the form the <br />names of mine officials and miners' representatives who participated in the review , <br />discussion. <br />Chapter 7 <br />INTERNAL CONTROL OF CONTENT OF PLAN <br />An important aspect of the plan approval process is minimizing the complexity and <br />amount of information in such plans. This can be accomplished in part by eliminating <br />unnecessary language. For example: <br />A. Mandatory standards should not be repeated in the written text of the plan. This , <br />avoids the potential for typographic errors that can change the meaning of the <br />standard. This approach will also reduce the complexity of the plan, since there is ' <br />no need to repeat mandatary standards in the plan. <br />B. Specific plans should not be required when the general plan is adequate. For ' <br />example, the operator need not submit longwall recovery or setup ventilation plans <br />each time a longwall is moved to a new location. One typical recovery and setup <br />ventilation plan showing ventilation controls and minimum ventilation quantities ' <br />for the planned longwall panels will suffice in most cases. <br />C. The operator should not be required to submit a revised plan each time a panel is <br />developed for connection to the bleeder system. This is unnecessary duplication <br />when the entire bleeder system design and mining projections are shown on the <br />mine map. , <br /> <br /> <br />r-~ <br />~II <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.