My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35974
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35974
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:26 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:52:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING CASTLE CONCRETE CO FN M-77-210
Violation No.
MV1989015
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 be in violation of the provisions of this articles. <br />2 There's no other reason. All the other issues~ai-e ripe. <br />3 Everyone is here and ready to speak to the issue of the <br />4 permit amendment. <br />5 The legislature put that provision in <br />6 there for a reason. It put it in there because t:he <br />7 actions and consequences and the actions that the: board <br />8 found at this last meeting was there was a violation. A <br />9 consequence of that violation is very clear in tt.e <br />10 statute that you cannot approve an amendment, anc. you <br />11 should not be involved in the process of avoidinc the <br />12 legislature's intention by simply continuing the matter <br />13 until you can deem the violation to be cured, which <br />14 brings me to the second point I'd like to make. <br />15 And that is, when is a violation cured? <br />16 The statute says that the key language in the statute is <br />17 whether the operator is found to be currently in <br />18 violation of the provisions of this article. <br />19 I don't think the presentation of a <br />20 corrective action plan is curing a violation. Consider <br />21 what the board was aware of when it found a violation. <br />22 Castle had promised before the last meeting not to do <br />23 certain things, including spilling hundreds of tons of <br />24 rocks off-site. The board found that Castle knowingly <br />25 and repeatedly broke this promise and found it tc be in <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.