Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes, May 22 - 23, 1991 4 <br /> Mr. Ed Mulhall , representing the operator, said he felt the Settlement <br /> Agreement reached between the operator and the Division would be the <br /> most appropriate manner in which to resolve the problems caused by the <br /> NOVs at this site. <br /> Mr. Greg McKennis, representing the Garfield Citizens' Alliance, said <br /> they endorsed the proposed Settlement Agreement, except there is no <br /> provision for public involvement other than addressing the Board at a <br /> formal hearing in the future, regarding procedural concerns. He said <br /> they would like to be allowed to visit the site during the inspection <br /> scheduled to take place in July. Mr. Mike Mechau, representing the <br /> Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association, also related a <br /> concern that there is no provision in the proposed Agreement for the <br /> public to accompany the Division during inspections at the site. <br /> It was clarified that this Board does not have the authority to order <br /> the operator to allow private citizens on the site. It was also <br /> clarified that language in the proposed Settlement Agreement requires <br /> the operator- to submit a "technical revision" in the future. The Board <br /> recommended that the language be changed to state that a "technical <br /> revision or amendment, as appropriate" would be required. <br /> Language in Paragraph D-2 of the Settlement Agreement, relating to the <br /> inspection, will be changed from '60 days' to '30 days' . Staff stated <br /> after a joint site inspection, the Division and the Forest Service <br /> would make their recommendations to the operator within 30 days of <br /> inspection (which is scheduled to begin by July 12, 1991 ) , and the <br /> revision would be approved or denied on January 12, 1992. <br /> Ms. Diane Delaney briefly addressed the Board.;`regarding' the F,ores:t <br /> Services' recommendation for inspection of the site. She said the <br /> inspection would be time-consuming and could not be completed in one <br /> day; the roads at the site are currently covered with snow. <br /> Mr. Johnson clarified that Division agreed with the recommended <br /> language changes to be made to the proposed Settlement Agreement, and <br /> Mr. Mulhall said the operator would agree with those changes also. <br /> At the Board's request the Division clarified that the inspection would <br /> begin by July 12, 1991 , and be completed by the* August 1991 Board <br /> Meeting. If, for good cause, the inspection cannot be completed by the <br /> August Board Meeting, the Division and operator (under Section F of the <br /> Agreement) would come back to the Board for a modification of the <br /> Order. Mr. Johnson suggested that the deadline date in Paragraph D-2 <br /> for the Division to provide the operator of a detailed summary and <br /> recommendations from the inspection be changed to 'September 19, 1991 <br /> for good cause shown' , etc. The operator agreed with this change. <br /> It was MOVED that the Board approve the Settlement Agreement with the <br /> noted cites (regarding the Division's September 19, 1991 , deadline to <br /> furnish the operator with a summary and recommendations from the <br /> inspection, and the change in language regarding submittal of an <br /> 'appropriate revision' ) and that the Board approve the Order. SECONDED <br /> AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (Jouflas, Danielson, Cooley and Cattany) . <br />