GENERAL46722 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Linden suggested a procedure whereby WFC would first attempt to make direct contact with the Reeder family. This could be at their home, or, if satisfactory to the Reeders and their employers, at their places of employment. Ms. Linden suggested [hat if WFC firs[ attempted to directly contact the Reeder family at home, and no one answered their telephone, WFC might then attempt to directly contact either of the Reeders at their work by telephone. Ms. Linden suggested WFC keep a log of these attempts, successful or not. Ms. Linden suggested that if WFC is unsuccessful in attempting to directly contact the Reeders at home and at work, WFC might then attempt to contact either of them by facsimile transmission (fax). This would provide WFC a second log of their attempt to contact the Reeders. Ms. Linden said that while direct contact would be the best form of compliance with Rule 4.08.4(4), having logs of at least two unsuccessful attempts to contact the Reeder family prior to the blasting would indicate a reasonable effort on the part of WFC [o comply with the rule. 2. Rule 4.08.4(]0)(b) states, "The Division may allow a variance from the maximum peak particle velocity limits if it determines that the structure is owned by the person conducting the surface coal mining operation, and the structure is not leased to another party, or if leased to another party, that a written waiver by the lessee is submitted to [he Division prior to the blasting." WFC, according to Ross Gubka, wondered whether DMG could allow such a variance if the owner of the structure in question was someone other than the person conducting the [Wining operation. Ms. Linden indicated that, unfortunately, this rule is quite specific in its language. She indicated that DMG may allow a variance from the maximum peak particle velocity limits prescribed by Rule 4.08.4(] 0)(b) only if the owner of the structure is the person conducting the coal mining operation. Cc: Dave Berry