My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990-08-13_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1990-08-13_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2021 8:58:06 AM
Creation date
5/2/2012 11:17:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
8/13/1990
Doc Name
MLRD Order to show cause (07/17/1990)
From
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc.
To
Department of Natural Resources
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Fred R. Banta, Director August 10, 1990 <br /> MLRD, Denver, CO 80203 Page 14 <br /> first six months of 1989 not obtained. <br /> The assessment conference officer agreed that a violation <br /> had occurred on the basis that, "Although no ground water pollution <br /> was noted, any changes to the approved plan must be approved by the <br /> Division. " In our judgment this was a technical non-compliance. <br /> The Assessment Worksheet prepared by the Division in advance of the <br /> assessment conference noted that, "The Division's ability to <br /> enforce the law was not significantly hindered. Proposed <br /> seriousness $0. 00. " <br /> The assessment conference officer agreed with the proposed <br /> assessment of $0.00 for seriousness and noted, in determining the <br /> fault component, that: <br /> The violation did not occur because of a lack of <br /> diligence on their part. It was unavoidable despite <br /> all their efforts to collect a sample within the <br /> given sampling period. <br /> I propose to reduce this to $0. 00. As evidenced <br /> by the collection of all the other data and <br /> laboratory analysis, the operator was diligently <br /> conducting the ground water monitoring. . . . <br /> During June of 1989, Mid-Continent sampled all 16 surface <br /> and groundwater monitoring points. At ten groundwater sites, <br /> samples were obtained without difficulty with the sampling device <br /> ordinarily used. This sampling device consists in part of a tube <br /> that measures approximately 3-feet in length. <br /> Mid-Continent experienced difficulty in collection of a <br /> sample from monitoring point GW-1. This monitoring point is a well <br /> drilled to beneath the Sutey refuse disposal area. A 3-inch <br /> plastic PVC pipe extends approximately 60-feet from the top of the <br /> refuse pile down the well. As the refuse pile grew in size, <br /> successive increments of pipe were added to allow continued <br /> sampling from the well. As the refuse pile has grown, the well- <br /> pipe has bent at a depth of approximately 25 to 30 feet. <br /> During the June sampling, Mid-Continent personnel found <br /> that, due to the curvature, the well pipe would not pass the <br /> sampling device. The curvature of the pipe is at such a depth as <br /> to prevent access for repairs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.