PERMFILE116629 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ r The issues wluch staff required the applicant to comply +vith are taken directly from the 112 permit application, and the exhibit requirements described in Rules 6.2.1, and 6.4.1 through 6.4.19. The applicant was found to have satisfied all technical adequacy items, in the application form, the original exhibits, and the collective adequacy responses. CHRONOLOGY 12/20/99 l 12 Application received (incomplete) (/26/00 112 Application completeness date (original 90-day decision date set for 4/25/00) 2/ 17(00 First adequacy review letter to applicant 3/13/00 Objection letter received by DMG (requires decision to be made by MLRB and date to be extended to 120th day: 5/25/00) 3/28/00 End of public comment period (requires 90-day decision date to move to 4/27/00, to allo+v full 30-day period between comment period and decision date) 3/31/00 Response to first adequacy letter received from applicant 4/5/00 Informal conference (held via telephone conference call): objector did not participate 4/5/00 Second adequacy revie+v letter to applicant 4(LO(00 Second infomral conference (held via telephone conference call). objector did not participate 4/19/00 Response to second adequacy letter received from applicant 4/27/00 Third adequacy review letter: all application items adequately addressed 4/27/00 DMG issues recommendation to approve application x/4/00 Authorization for another person to represent objector, received by DMG Denver office x/8/00 Pre-hearing conference (held via telephone conference call): objector did not participate ~/10/00 Pre-hearing Order mailed to parties by DMG Denver office i/24/00 MLRB hearing held in Denver during regular monthly Board meeting (hearing falls before the 120th day of the application revie+v) Follo+ving this presentation form are copies of the letter of objection and the form for authorization [o represent a ~~'.