My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC12501
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC12501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:14:17 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:56:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
11/28/2000
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO ITEM 2 IN YOUR INSPECTION REPORT OF DANIELS SAND PIT 2 10-18-00 INSPECTION PN M-1973-007
From
SOUTHWESTERN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
To
DMG
Inspection Date
10/18/2000
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.
/
11
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
Page 2 <br />November 27, 2000 <br />Berhan Keffelew <br />Schlage Lock Treatment Facility <br />In the even[ the facility is still in place when Transit Mix desires to mine this area, Paragraph 6 addresses <br />the procedures that must be followed. Transit Mix must notify Schlage Lock of the desire to mine this area <br />so the facility could be moved to another location and the treatment continue. Paragraph 11 goes on to <br />state that if the treatment ends prior [o Transit Mix moving into the area for extracting the sand then the <br />facilities must be removed within 180 days of the termination of the treatment program. <br />Paragraphs 8 and 9 are especially important with respect to providing protection to Transit Mix and, <br />potentially, the State of Colorado. These passages state that this agreement is binding upon the successors <br />to Transit Mix and also protects Transit Mix and successors from any liability that results from the <br />treatment processes. In effect, if Transit Mix were to go out of business and the State of Colorado, through <br />the Division of Minerals and Geology, were to assume responsibility Eor the reclamation of the site this <br />agreement and all of its requirements would still apply. Therefore, this agreement not only protects <br />Transit Mix but also [he State in the event of bond forfeiture. The State would not incur any additional <br />reclamation costs for the removal of the facility, if that was desired, because those costs, including <br />disturbance reclamation, are required to be paid for by Schlage Lock. <br />In conclusion, it appears that a Technical Revision to address possible effects of the mining on these <br />facilities is not necessary. That is because the facilities will not even be [here when the mining occurs. They <br />will need to be moved somewhere else prior to any possible adverse effects occurring. Transit Mix <br />certainly has no desire to interfere with the Compliance Order on Consent that Schalge Lock must <br />comply with, but that does not include foregoing the mining of sand in Phase 4e. It is clear by the terms of <br />this agreement that it was formulated with a full awareness of the eventual mining of Phase 4e and that <br />Schlage Lock, by agreeing to the terms, is in agreement with these procedures. It also appears to be quite <br />clear that the agreement protects the State in the event Transit Mix were to forfeit the bond. <br />Sincerely, <br />Mark A. Heffner <br />cc: Transit Mix Concrete <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.