Laserfiche WebLink
- <br /> <br />• III 1111111111111111 <br />999 <br />FAII2FIELD AND WOODS, PC. <br />ATIYIRNEYS AND COUNSEIARS AT IAW <br />One Norwest Center, Sprite 2100 <br />1700 I~cohi Stmet <br />Denier, Colorado 80203/524 <br />Telephone: (303) 830-2100 <br />Facshnile: 1303) 83(1-1033 <br />June 13, 1995 <br />VIA HAND DELIVERY <br />Mr. Alan Sorenson <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />Office of Mined Land <br />Reclamation <br />Division of Minerals and <br />Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver. CO 80203 <br />RE: Technical Revision M-77-393, Jenkins Site <br />Dear Mr. Sorenson: <br />Philip J~ Roselli <br />(303) 894-4441 <br />As you know, on April 5, 1995, the operator at the Jenkins Site submitted to your office <br />a proposed technical revision to the above-referenced permit. On April 21, 1995, the City of <br />Boulder ("Boulder") submitted a written statement objecting to the Operator's application for a <br />Technical Revision, pursuant to 2 C.C.R. 407-1, § 1.7.1(1). <br />On May 24, 1995, a hearing was held before the Mined Land Reclamation. Board (the <br />"Board"), to determine whether a Technical Revision was the appropriate procedure to address <br />the changes requested by the Operator. Modification of a permit pursuant to the Technical <br />Revision process is appropriate only where the requested change does not have more than a <br />minor effect upon the approved or proposed reclamation or Environmental Plan. Boulder <br />maintained that the changes requested by the Operator could only be addressed through the <br />amendment process. In other words, this was a procedural question: which was the appropriate <br />procedure to address the changes requested by the Operator -- a Technical Revision or an <br />Amendment? The Board determined that the Technical Revision procedure was appr~~priate, and <br />Boulder is now considering whether to appeal that decision. <br />