My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC26227
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC26227
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:25:42 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 10:04:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
10/11/1991
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO & DISCREPANCIES IN THE 9-19-91 INSPECTION REPORT FOR DANIELS SAND PIT 2 YOUR FN M-73-00
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
MLR
Inspection Date
9/19/1991
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
~la~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ <br />37 E. Colorado Avenue 999 ~~ ^^ ff <br />Denver, CO 80210 `~ ~~ <br />(303) 722-9067 "'°'"" <br />Environmental Services Botanical Studies Photography ~` <br />October 11, 1991 <br />Berhan Reffelew <br />Mined Land Reclamation <br />215 Centennial Bldg. <br />1313 Sherman St <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />~E~EIVEn <br /> <br />RE: Response to and discrepancies in the 9-19-91 inspection report for <br />Daniels Sand Pit #2. <br />Your File No.: M-73-007 <br />Dear Mr. Reffelew: <br />Carl Herskind, President of Transit Mix Concrete, provided me with a <br />copy of your inspection report and asked me to examine it far <br />consistency with the permit and the site, and, if necessary, provide a <br />response and recommendation regarding the correction of any problems you <br />found on the site. After examining the inspection report, comparing it <br />to the site and the permit I found quite a large number of errors in <br />your report. In general it appears to me that pour comparison of the <br />site conditions to the permit was performed with reference to a permit <br />description that is no longer effective. It appears that most of the <br />discrepancies you discuss are wi[h reference to the plan submitted and <br />approved back in 1980. <br />In 1985 an amendment was submitted and approved for this operation and <br />the immediately contiguous Castle Concrete operation. Both of those <br />permit amendments were prepared, processed, and approved together <br />because the reclamation of one site is dependent upon what occurs on the <br />adjacent site. There are other operations in the state where operators <br />that have far less corporate linkage than Transit Mix and Castle <br />Concrete have what might be called "cooperative reclamation plans". So <br />this is not unique. Many of the figures and comments in your inspection <br />report do not reflect the changes made by the 1985 amendments. Those <br />amendments were intended to replace the previously approved plans, as <br />will be discussed later. Therefore, the 1980 plan which may still be in <br />a red, vinyl binder, is no longer effective. The new plans included in <br />the 1985 amendment, which should be in a lime green binder, are the ones <br />that should be used in determining what is supposed to happen on the <br />site. In the unlikely event the 1985 permit amendment is not included <br />in your files we would be happy to provide you with a copy. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.