My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV03150
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV03150
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:00:56 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:06:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977393
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/13/1995
Doc Name
TR M-77-393 JENKINS SITE
From
FAIRFIELD & WOODS PC
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR2
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.
/
2
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
' -; - <br /> <br />Fa~~Ln arm WOODS, EC. <br />.~-rotu~YS nxn couxsEwxs nT taw <br />June 13, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />While the Board has decided the procedural issue, Boulder is still awaiting action on its <br />substantive objections to the proposed changes to the Permit, as expressed in its April 21 letter. <br />To our knowledge, the Office of Mined Land Reclamation (the "Office") has not yet acted on <br />the substantive objections set forth in that letter. <br />Specifically, 2 C.C.R. 407-1, § 1.7.4(1) provides that comments regarding Regular 112 <br />operations shall be submitted in accordance with subsection 1.7.1. Again, subsection 1.7.1 <br />permits any person to submit written objections to any application for a revision to a previously <br />granted permit. In its April 21 letter, Boulder submitted its objections to thy: Operator's <br />proposed Technical Revision of its Regular 112 permit. 2 C.C.R. 407-1, § 1.7.4(2) provides <br />that the Office, upon receiving a timely objection in accordance with § 1.7, must set the <br />application for a hearing before the Board and schedule an Informal Conference as provided in <br />subsection 1.4.6. Dan Frost of this office previously requested an Informal Conference and <br />hearing in a letter to Carl Mount, dated April 21, 1995. To our knowledge, the Office has <br />neither scheduled an Informal Conference, nor set the application for a Technical Revision for <br />a hearing before the Board, in order to address the substantive objections set forth in Boulder's <br />April 21 letter. <br />Boulder timely submitted its objections to the proposed Technical Revision, pursuant to <br />§ 1.7.1. This letter renews Boulder's formal request, as first expressed in Mr. Fro:;t's April 21 <br />letter, that the Office schedule an Informal Conference to address Boulder's substantive <br />objections to the Technical Revision, as required by § 1.7.4(2), and that the Office also set these <br />substantive objections for a hearing before the Board to take place after the Informal Conference, <br />as also required by § 1.7.4(2). <br />Sincerely, <br />~( ~t/~ G~usi"" ' <br />Philip J. Roselli <br />of <br />FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P.C. <br />ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF BOULDER <br />PJR: sc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.