Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiuiu iii <br />999 <br />DATE: I I /30/00 <br />TO: Berhan Keffelew <br />FROM: Jim Stevens ~ ~/ <br />RE: Mark Heifner's response to the problem identified at the Daniels Sand Pit #2 <br />I am no lawyer; so I may not understand the fine points of the agreement Heffner sent as a response to your <br />identification of the Schlage Lock ground water treatment facility within the permit area as a compliance problem <br />and your requiring a corrective action. My review of the agreement, however, did not convince me that it satisfies <br />either Rule 6.4.19 or C.R.S. 34-32.5-I 15(4)(e), front which the Rule originates, even if it were included in the <br />permit file. <br />As 1 understand the situation, there is no indication in the permit (ile that such a treatment facility exists within the <br />permit area. Apparently the facility w;ts installed well after the permit issued. As a result, the permit file must <br />contain some acknowledgement of the existence of these sieddicant, valuable, and permanent (to some extent) <br />structures in the permit area. That, at a minimum, would seem to require a technical revision be submitted. <br />In regard to the agreement, it appears to deal more with Schlage Lock's obligations than with Transit Mix's. We <br />don't care about the provisions of such agreements that are not made part of the permit, i.e., in this' case, Schlage <br />Lock's promises to reclaim, vacate, notify, etc. Our obligation, as specified in the Rule and the Statute, is to ensure <br />that Transit Mix, the operator, controls or answers for its activities in and around the treatment facility, as lone as <br />that Facility is anywhere in or near the permit area. The treatment facility is in operation now in the permit area <br />while the mining operation is also being carzied on. There is nothing in the permit file (or in the agreement) that <br />currently speaks to Transit Mix not conducting its mining operation within 200 feet from the facility, or <br />demonstrates that the operation will not damage the facility, or states that, if damage occurs, that Transit Mix will <br />compensate the owner of the (acili[y (or it. As a result, we mus[ require that Transit Mix, whose activities lie within <br />our area of responsibility, meet the specific requirements of Rule 6.4.19 and/or C.R.S. 34-32.5-I IS(4)(e). As I said <br />earlier, this agreement, even if it is included in the permit file by means of a technical revision, does not appear (at <br />least to me) to meet those requirements. <br />Bruce, however, might like to have the AGO review this agreement to see if it will so serve. <br />