My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989-11-27_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1989-11-27_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2021 11:23:30 AM
Creation date
10/4/2012 11:22:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
11/27/1989
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.
/
45
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
INSPECTION REPORT <br /> Page 1 <br /> October 31 through November 3, 1989 <br /> MidContinent Resources, Inc. <br /> PO Box 500 <br /> Carbondale, Colo <br /> Coal Basin mines <br /> Conditions at the mine during the inspection: much of the upper mine <br /> area was snow covered with some melt occurring during the day; cold & <br /> overcast most of the time with some clearing through the day <br /> Personnel Present During the Inspection : <br /> Lou Ron Thompson: MidContinent Resources <br /> Scott .Tones : Midcontinent Resources <br /> Bill Crick : Colorado Mined Land Reclamation <br /> Steve Rathbun : OSM, Albuquerque Field Office <br /> 3ary Fritz : OSM, Albuquerque Field Office, #244 <br /> GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> "his was a complete oversight inspection. The Stake was notified <br /> ibout my schedule and was able to send their leed inspector for the <br /> line so he could conduct a joint inspection with me . <br /> ENFORCEMENT ACTION <br /> "'he State inspector did not issue any violations on the mine during <br /> _he inspection. fie had some concerns and requested that certain <br /> .hings be corrected during the inspection but did not take any <br /> °nforcement action . The comment was made that he would review his <br /> totes of the inspection in their office and might possibly issue <br /> something at that time . As of the date of this report, the state has <br /> lot issued any violations for this inspection. That was confirmed <br /> ,ia a phone conversation with Mr . Crick ' s supervisor . <br /> I issued Ten Day Notice 989-02-244-5 to the State for nine <br /> ,iolations noted during the inspection . Violation #1 was issued for <br /> he company' s failure to protect topsoil after it is redistributed. <br /> 'he company resoiled an additional four acres of the old refuse pile uring the summer of 89, per their certification record of September / �" <br /> 7, 1989 but did not take steps to mulch or seed the area to protect he soil . The slopes 01 the waste are now snow covered, rills and <br /> ullies were formed in the resoiled area which indicated soil loss .The 2nd violation was written for the failure to pass surfaceW' <br /> rainage through a sediment pond before leaving the permit area . Two <br /> yeas were cited in the violation. The first was drainage off of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.