My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE20044
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE20044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:24:20 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:42:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984065
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/10/1994
Doc Name
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Violation No.
CV1994009
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.
/
3
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 />8E'TTLIEMBNT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-94-009 <br />Notice of Violwtion C-94-009 Was issued for "Failure to make <br />copios of all Yaoorda available for public inspection - <br />spaoifioally DHC permit was not on file at Garfield County <br />Courtheuss^. 6arbara pavlik issued the violation to NCIG, <br />Firiahoial, InC. for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Hine on May 23, 1994. <br />Ms. PBVlik eXplained that during her complete inspection on flay <br />17, 1994, there was_riot a copy„o! the permit on Tile at the <br />county courthouse. In ttarch, 1994 NCIG had been notified"that-- <br />thoy needed tc havQ the permit in the public file. ]-ccordinq to <br />the DIIG records, q copy o! the permit had been sent to Kr. <br />Ruah~on Hacker in January, 1943 !or hio signature. A signed Dopy <br />o! the permit was nov~r returned to the DHG. <br />Nr. potor 14atthiea, representing NCIG, roqucstod that the NOV be <br />vacated. The permit.was sont to Rueh~'bn 8ackez. fir. Hacker was <br />in the.prooess of moving from 1,oa Ahgelee to 9bn Franoiaoo in <br />January, 1993. tie questiorie4.whether or not ltr. l+ack~r ever <br />received the permit. 1-dditionally, tlr, Matthirs said he it the <br />pYSleitting contact and he never 1Ceeelved, or sbtw, a Dopy O! tho <br />permit. T. copy ahouid have been ;ent to him. Jfr. Metthiea hed n <br />document ho thought was the permit. it was a proposed decision <br />docuument. ,after he woo notified in March, 1994 0! the mieaing <br />permit document, he plaoed a cop o! the decision dooumerit, <br />thinking it was the permit, on file at the oounty oourthouse. <br />,!~ s..h <br />,e.., d <br />8aaod on the information presented in the confcrenoe, T will <br />uphold the Nov. Clearly, there wsa some oonluaion, end a look o! <br />follow-up regarding the January, 1993 permit dooument.. However, <br />during the oonlernriaa it beaama alaar that Kr. Saoker was the <br />oorract persen to send the permit dooument to einoe he was the <br />listed permitting ooritaat.: This her. been revioed and tlr, ----- ---- <br />xatthies is now fisted as the permitting contact on the <br />appiicatioh. The dsaiaion document, mistakenly considered to be <br />the permit by ![r. tlatthies was the permit revision dsaiaion form. <br />The proposed civil penalty wss: <br />History 80.00 <br />8eriouaneaa $350.00 <br />Fault 8760.40 <br />rood it^ith 80.00 <br />Total gsoo.oo <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.