My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE30168
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE30168
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:37:00 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:32:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1989074
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/18/1993
Doc Name
RIMROCK COAL CO RIMROCK STRIP MINE ID C-89-074 DIVISION LETTER DATED 10-14-93 DENYING PUBLIC HEARING
From
LANDMARK RECLAMATION INC
To
DMG
Violation No.
CV1993053
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
J <br />~:~ LANDMARK <br />RECLAMATION, INC. <br />~ IIIIIIIIIIIl111111! <br />,lr` <br />' 7r..~ <br />October 18'.;..,1993 L'l I~p 7.9 `/ <br />9,~ <br />Mr. Wallace Erickson <br />Environmental Protection Intern <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street-Rm. 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Rimrock Coal Company, Rimrock Strip Mine, ID No. C-89-074 <br />Division Letter Dated 10-14-93, Denying Public Hearing <br />for NOVs C-93-053, C-93-085, 8 C-93-100. <br />Dear Mr. Erickson, <br />We hereby request reconsideration by the Division to be heard <br />at a public hearing regarding the reference NOVS. I received the <br />notice to request a hearing on September 7, 1993 and the check was <br />written and mailed on October 5, 1993, within the 30 day limit <br />under the rules. Although there may have been some disruption in <br />the flow of intra-office mail and routing through accounting, there <br />was certainly no intent to extend payment beyond the 30 day window <br />and waive our right to a hearing. In fact, we spoke with you prior <br />to the 30 day limit to discuss September or October hearing dates <br />and determined the October date would be our desired date, <br />We urge the Division to extend the time for receipt of notice <br />and payment, or reconsider the interpretation of the beginning of <br />the 30 day count. We strongly desire to be heard and believe it is <br />in the best interests of the Division and Landmark that the hearing <br />occur, and without intentional abuse of the rules, it is the intent <br />of those rules that the operator be given every opportunity to be <br />heard. <br />In regard to the objection to the NOVS, we feel that the <br />penalties involved are extreme relative to the potential for damage <br />cited in the NOVS, and it is our belief that portions of the <br />citations are in error. <br />Please advise at your earliest convenience if the hearing may <br />be rescheduled. A November date woulfl be desirable if possible. <br />Please call if you have questions. <br />,_„ <br />Sincerely, <br />auo ~~ / _ / <br />Y 4d J/////J(/~ <br />T ~~Q(aM~ ~00 / ~` '~ <br />s'~ 1VO'e Mark Kerr <br />~ eaese ~a a LL9L owaw ~ell!wsueal xel Puelq .,11-19od <br />Operations Manager <br />X901 South Windermere Street, Ir ttleton, Coloredv H0120 <br />Tblcphona: (3019) 795-5130 Fax: (303) 795249 <br />i0 'd 96:51 NOA £6-81-,L00 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.