My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-12-10_REVISION - C1980007 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2010-12-10_REVISION - C1980007 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:49 PM
Creation date
12/10/2010 2:37:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
12/10/2010
Doc Name
Extension Request and Approval (Emailed)
From
Dan Hernandez
To
Kathy Welt
Type & Sequence
MR366
Email Name
TAK
JRC
DIH
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.
/
6
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
Thank you both for your input, and for your patience. Please feel free to call me with any further questions or <br />comments you may have. <br />Dan <br />Daniell. Hernandez <br />Daniel I. Hernandez <br />Senior Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman St, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />New Phone Number: 303-866-3567 ext 8126 <br />Fax: 303-832-8106 <br />Website: www.minina.state.co.us <br />From: Brown, Sandy <br />Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:36 PM <br />To: Hernandez, Daniel; Berry, David <br />Subject: FW:Perimeter Disturbance Markers <br />Dave and Dan, <br />Please see the emails below that summarize the interpretation for the perimeter disturbance markers. OSM has <br />confirmed the interpretation Dan H. and I discussed yesterday. This interpretation is consistent with how we have <br />applied the marker requirements at the mines on my team. I don't see any conflict with the perimeter makers and <br />signage that Mountain Coal Company has proposed in their email to Dan. A revision to the Deserado permit will be <br />necessary to require perimeter markers on the large, extended long-term mine facilities. <br />I think we can put this issue to rest. <br />Sandy <br />From: Belka, Christine <br />Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:33 AM <br />To: 'Brown, Sandy'; Shaeffer, Elizabeth A. <br />Subject: RE: Disturbance Markers <br />Hi Sandy, <br />Yes, I believe you have captured my concerns. My thought on the subject is that the markers are intended to tell <br />equipment operators where they can and can't disturb ground. Main facilities areas are long-term disturbances where <br />equipment and stockpiles are regularly moving around. Keeping those areas delineated helps inspectors see if <br />boundaries are being pushed. Once constructed, MDW don't tend to have a lot of earth moving equipment on site. For <br />that reason, I would be ok with allowing those markers to be removed before final bond release. Ultimately, it is up to <br />you - whatever you think serves you and the intent of the regulation best. My other concern is consistency. After we left <br />Deserado, mine staff contacted several other operations and the Utah regulatory program to see how the regulation is <br />enforced elsewhere. <br />Thank you so much for your attention to this issue. <br />Christine <br />From: Brown, Sandy [mailto:Sandy.Brown@state.co.us] <br />Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:20 AM <br />To: Belka, Christine; Shaeffer, Elizabeth A. <br />Subject: Disturbance Markers <br />5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.