My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-03-28_ENFORCEMENT - M1983141
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1983141
>
2012-03-28_ENFORCEMENT - M1983141
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:55:33 PM
Creation date
4/5/2012 3:49:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983141
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
3/28/2012
Doc Name
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND ORDER
From
DRMS
To
AGC RESOURCES
Email Name
MAC
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.
/
7
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
22. On February 7, 2012, Mark Steen submitted a document entitled "The <br />Underlying Landowners' Formal Petition for Postponement of Proceedings and <br />Notice of Intent to File a `Request for Transfer of Construction Material Permit and <br />Succession of Operations "' ( "Petition for Postponement "). The Division, through <br />Assistant Attorney General Steven Nagy, submitted a Response to Petition for <br />Postponement, asserting, among other things, that Mr. Steen had no standing to <br />petition the Board. At the hearing, the Board received presentations by Mr. Steen <br />and the Division on the limited question of whether Mr. Steen had standing to <br />petition the Board. After consideration, the Board found that Mr. Steen and the <br />entities he claims to represent do not constitute parties to this proceeding and <br />determined not to consider the Petition for Postponement. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />23. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Act, Article 32 of Title 34, C.R.S. (2011) ( "Act "). <br />24. Pursuant to section 34 -32 -124, C.R.S., the Board may find a violation <br />and impose a penalty when it finds that an operator has failed to comply with the <br />conditions of an order, permit, or regulation. The Operator (a) failed to complete <br />the corrective actions, and (b) failed to pay the civil penalty ordered in the <br />December 2011 Order. <br />25. Under section 34- 32- 118(1)(b), C.R.S. and Rule 4.20(1)(b), a financial <br />warranty shall be subject to forfeiture whenever an operator fails to cure a default <br />under a performance warranty. The Operator, by being in violation of the Act, is in <br />default under a performance warranty and has failed to cure that default. <br />ORDER <br />The Operator did not appear in this matter to present any mitigating factors. <br />There is no information before the Board indicating that any action other than the <br />relief requested is appropriate. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board enters <br />the following order: <br />The Board finds the Operator in violation of the Act pursuant to section 34- <br />32 -124, C.R.S., for failure to comply with an order, permit, or regulation. <br />The Board finds the Operator in violation of section 34- 32- 118(1)(b), C.R.S. <br />for failing to cure a default under a performance warranty. <br />AGC Resources, LLC <br />Cash and Who Do Mines, M- 1983 -141 <br />MV- 2012 -006 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.