My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (252)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (252)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 10:52:11 AM
Creation date
6/20/2012 10:04:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) 1993 Correspondence
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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
months, beginning with the October 1990 inspection and including the minesite visit <br /> by AFO and WSC personnel when the bond adequacy was assessed. <br /> As resolution to the Notices of Violation written in October 1990, MLRD approved a <br /> technical revision to change the mine water treatment to a hydroclone package <br /> plant. Installation of the hydroclone had been delayed until the mine resumed <br /> activity. MCR submitted calculations to prove that the ponds, which had been <br /> extensively dredged in the last 18 months, had significant long term sediment <br /> storage for the minimal sediment load carried by the mine water when the mine is <br /> not active. <br /> Once on site, the AFO inspector confirmed the poor conditions of the road <br /> drainage systems, the lack of stabilizing vegetation on road cuts and the <br /> tremendous amount of garbage and non-coal waste strewn about on the disturbed <br /> areas. She wrote three TDN's to address these conditions. The State responded <br /> by writing extensively detailed NOV's September 23, 1991 that covered all the <br /> OSM inspector's concerns and required the interim and permanent measures she <br /> had discussed with the State inspector. Subsequently, major portions of the <br /> abatement requirements were vacated or deferred to the reclamation schedule in <br /> the Settlement Agreement. In effect very little protection measures were taken. <br /> The non-coal waste Notice of Violation was terminated the following August, but <br /> the State inspection reports do not describe what clean-up occurred. <br /> 5 Mid-Continent January 26,1993 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.