Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanment of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone:1303)866-3567 <br />FA%: (}03) 872-8106 <br />DATE: August 3, 1994 <br />TO: NOV C-94-014 File <br /> <br />FROM: Daniel I. Hernandez, Assessment Officer~~ <br />~~~~~ - <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Rome <br />Governor <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />E><ecuu ve Duector <br />Michael B Long <br />Division Director <br />RE: Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment, Powderhorn Coal <br />Company, Roadside Portals, Permit No. C-81-041 <br />In accordance with Section 5.04.5 of the Regulations, I have <br />developed the following Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment: <br />1. History (5.04.5(3)(a)): $100 <br />NOVS C-93-119 and C-93-121 were issued to Powderhorn Coal <br />Company within the twelve months preceding the issuance of NOV <br />C-94-014. Neither was vacated, and the operator has paid the <br />penalties associated with each. All periods for Board and <br />judicial appeals have passed, with no appeals filed. <br />Seriousness (5.04.5(3)(b)): <br />$250 <br />As this NOV was written as a violation of performance <br />standards rather than of administrative requirements, Rule <br />5.04.5(3)(b)(i) applies. Consequently, the amount of civil <br />penalty proposed with regard to "Seriousness" is based upon <br />two factors: (1) the probability of the occurrence of the <br />event which a violated standard is designed to prevent, and <br />(2) the duration and extent of the potential or actual damage <br />in terms of area and impact on the public or environment. <br />With regard to the first factor, it would appear that the <br />Statues and Regulations cited as having been violated are <br />designed to prevent discharges of water that exceed Federal or <br />State effluent limitations from leaving the permit area. From <br />the evidence present in the file, it is apparent that such an <br />event would not have happened until a precipitation event <br />greater than the 25-year, 24-hour event occurred. Because of <br />this, I find the probability of a non-compliance discharge <br />leaving Sediment Pond 11 occurring to be low. <br />With regard to the second factor, it is apparent that the <br />extent of potential damage to the public and environment <br />resulting from a non-compliance discharge from Pond 11 would <br />be limited to impacts to the quality of the water in the <br />