My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE24292
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE24292
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:09 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:40:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/19/1993
Doc Name
MEMO PHONE CONVERSATION
From
DMG
To
NOV FILE C-93-006
Violation No.
CV1993006
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
• ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />STATE OF COLCJi~9iw <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depa rtmenl of Natural Resources <br />1311 Sherman 8L, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone: (301! 8663567 <br />FA%: (103) 83b8106 <br />DATE: February 19, 1993 <br />TO: NOV File C-93-006 <br />FROM: Christine E. Johnsto <br />RE: Phone Conversation (007.PHONE) <br />pF'~O~ <br />ti~ ~R9 <br />Nc .i ~~~~~}}} <br />. ~~ <br />~ /e ]6 <br />Roy Rnmer <br />Governor <br />M ii hael B. Long <br />Drvrsion Director <br />I called Kathy welt to let her know that I was issuing a violation <br />to MCC for failure to submit a semi-annual subsidence report on a <br />semi-annual basis. Her initial reaction was shock. But the tone <br />she took on was quite aggressive and it seemed she was attacking me <br />personally, although I used "we" and "the Division" she would turn <br />it around and say "you" and "Christine". I tried to explain to her <br />how the violation was written and what the abatement plan is, but <br />I could only tell her about the first abatement step, because she <br />would not let me get a word in. The following are excerpts from <br />our conversation. (I do not remember in what order these things <br />were said.) <br />*She felt the violation was stupid (unnecessary) because we have <br />the data. I said we did not get the information for a year and a <br />half and MCC is using the information to backup that they will not <br />damage resources in Minnesota Creek. <br />*She said I was ruining something (a 6-year violation free record) <br />the company had worked very hard for and I was going to mess it up <br />with a "piddly" paperwork problem. <br />*She took offense at the fact that I was issuing a violation and <br />thought it was rude. <br />*She said I never asked for the report. I said I have been asking <br />for it for a year (since I became the lead specialist). She said <br />I never stressed the importance of submitting the report. She said <br />I never said it would be a violation if you did not submit the <br />report. I told her it was required in the regulations and MCC's <br />permit. She did not believe me that it was required in the <br />regulations. I also reiterated that this information is important <br />for the upcoming permit revision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.