My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1990-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2021 7:24:57 PM
Creation date
10/4/2012 11:22:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
7/9/1990
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP)
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.
/
20
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
Mr. Michael B. Long 5 <br /> interpreted the TDN as being one of failure to maintain the drain for the <br /> access road to the No. 2 mine that carries water off the road to the No. 2 <br /> mine ponds. Your office believes that the drain was properly maintained at <br /> the time of the inspection. <br /> AFO agrees that there was an error in the TDN regarding the rule cited and <br /> the application of one regulation for two different classes of roads. <br /> Therefore, AFO is withdrawing violation 7 of 9 from the record and is <br /> re-issuing another TDN to address the separate and distinct road situation. <br /> The TDN cites Colorado rule 4.06.1 as the regulation believed to have been <br /> violated for violation 8 of 9. The TDN states that the operator failed to <br /> save topsoil during the construction of the Sutey Waste Pile extension <br /> road. <br /> OSM finds that MLRD's issuance of a Notice of Violation for violation 8 of <br /> 9 of the TDN to be appropriate. <br /> The TDN cites Colorado rule 2.01.3 (1) as the regulation believed to have <br /> been violated for violation 9 of 9. The TDN states that sections of the <br /> access roads are not in the permit area. Your response states MLRD's view <br /> that the roads are not marked on any map as being within the permit area <br /> but are referred to in the permit and thus are included in the permit area. <br /> AFO finds MLRD's response to violation 9 of 9 to be good cause for not <br /> taking action. It is apparent, however, that the permit boundary <br /> delineation on the maps in the permit do not include portions of the road <br /> system being used by the operator. This is apparently a permitting error, <br /> and AFO recommends that this oversight be corrected. <br /> If you disagree with the findings of this office, you may request an <br /> informal review in accordance with 30 CFR 842.211(b) (1) (iii) (A) . <br /> Sincerely, f <br /> / Robert H. Hagen, Director <br /> (' Albuquerque Field Office <br /> Enclosure 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.