Laserfiche WebLink
AUG 23 193 16:29 TO: 303 832 8106 PO4 <br /> Mr. Steven G. Renner <br /> August 23, 1993 <br /> Page - 3 <br /> Thus, we have the impossible situation of the MLRD <br /> issuing NOVs, imposing fines, and demanding performance by a <br /> bankrupt company in contravention of 3.04 CCR coupled with a <br /> refusal to consider revision Of the same because they were not <br /> authorized to impose the schedule in the first place. <br /> Under the circumstances, the Statute (34-33-124) and the <br /> Regulations (3.04 CCR) require forfeiture of the Bond with proceeds <br /> to be used by the "office for reclamation of the area covered by <br /> the Bond" . <br /> We again urge that a realistic agreement be drafted that <br /> gives recognition to the realities of this situation and also <br /> provides means whereby a credible borrowing arrangement against <br /> reclaimed property can be structured, and also offers a basis on <br /> which Sanwa and the Creditor's Committee can reasonably be expected <br /> to agree. <br /> We had hoped this would be the text of the draft that Mr. <br /> Johnson was to prepare. <br /> We will do everything legally possible to bring about <br /> reclamation in accordance with the Plan, but need your prompt <br /> liability for completion of the reclamation work <br /> under a compliance schedule approved under <br /> 3.04.1(2); or <br /> (d) The permittee or surety has failed to comply with a <br /> compliance schedule approved under 3.04.2(2). <br /> (2) . . . The Board shall not agree to a compliance <br /> schedule if: <br /> (a) The permitter has become insolvent, failed in <br /> business, been adjudicated a bankrupt, filed a <br /> petition in bankruptcy or for a receiver, or had a <br /> receiver appointed by any court: or <br /> (c) The permittee cannot demonstrate or prove the <br /> ability to continue to operate in compliance with <br /> the Act, these Rules and the permit. <br />