My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35980
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:26 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:52:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
5/16/1995
Doc Name
REFQUEST FOR INFORMAL REIVEW AND REVERSAL OF OSM WRITTEN DETERMINATION 10 DAY NOTICE X-95-020-179-00
From
DMG
To
OSM
Violation No.
TD1995020179001TV2
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.
/
11
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
l <br />Mr. Rick Siebel, Regional Director -11- May 16, 1995 <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Western Region Coordinating Center <br />ditch with no check dams, and with ditch side slopes of 3H:1V. These side slopes form the <br />north-facing slope of the "pad" area, and the toe of the south-facing slope of the waste bank. <br />Therefore, the grading had not been conducted at the time of the inspections. <br />Based on the information provided herein, the Division believes that the remaining conditions <br />cited in Part Two of this TDN do not represent a violation of Rule 4.14.1(2)(a). The Division <br />requests the Western Region Coordinating Center reverse the determination of AFO that the <br />Division's responses to Part Two of this TDN were inappropriate. <br />E. Conclusion <br />In light of the information provided herein, the Division does not believe the remaining <br />conditions cited in Part One or Part Two of Ten-Day Notice X-95-020-179-001 TV 2 warrant the <br />issuance of an enforcement action by the State of Colorado. The Division believes that had these <br />issues been discussed as potential violations at the time of the March 8, 1995 Phase I Bond <br />Release Inspection, rather than through the process of a Ten-Day Notice received over 35 days <br />after the inspection, these issues could have been adequately addressed at that time to the <br />satisfaction of all parties involved. <br />Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further assistance or information we may provide. <br />Sincerely, <br />Daniel I. Hernandez <br />Senior Environmental Protection Specialist <br />DIH/bjw <br />Enclosure(s) <br />cc: Janet Binns, DMG <br />Susan McCannon, DMG <br />Thomas E. Ehmett, Acting Director, OSM/AFO <br />M:\OSS\B1W\Dn1.7DN <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.