Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i~ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />• • 5 <br />1 hearing process, found that Castle Concrete was in <br />2 violation and did not proceed on the permit amendment <br />3 based on the part of the law which says the board cannot <br />4 issue a permit to an operator who is currently in <br />5 violation. <br />6 Since that time Castle Concrete has been <br />7 working on the corrective action with respect to the <br />8 violation in trying to get that resolved before we come <br />9 back to hearing on whether the permit amendment cught to <br />10 be granted. The corrective action was set up such that <br />11 Castle Concrete had an obligation to perform certain <br />12 duties by October 30, so we have not run the full time <br />13 frame at this point for allowing them to comply Hith the <br />14 corrective action. <br />15 We have, however, had discussions with <br />16 them. They have submitted plans to us, and we have <br />17 reviewed those plans, and at this point we think that the <br />18 plans are acceptable in a gross conceptual stand~~oint, <br />19 but we have not had an opportunity to review them and <br />20 some of the details. We have some very specific <br />21 questions that we'd like to discuss with Castle Concrete <br />22 having to do with the construction of a sediment control <br />23 facility, with respect to the stability of the slide <br />24 area, as you recall, that was involved in the onE~ <br />25 violation and the bond and some other aspects of the <br />