PERMFILE123380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. iii story of Previous Violation, 30 C.F.R. §723.12 • As stated earlier, KCC has no previous vio- lations, Seriousness, 30 C.F.R. §723.12(c) Referring to the language of 30 C.F.R. §723.12 (c){3), I:CC contends that the failure to publish notice in no ~aay obstructed enforcement of SCtC RA or any of the applicable regulations thereunder. For example, the blasting schedule which was re- published on July 19, 1979 is identical to the prior t4arch 1, 1979 schedule. Further, KCC notes that the alleged violation does not go to the failure to publish, but only to republish at the frequency designated in the interim regulations. In this regard it is pertinent to note that the permanent regulatory program under SAtCRA requires republication only on an annual basis if there are no changes in the blasting schedule. This would certainly indicate that failure to strictly observe the three-month frequency requirement for republication under the interim regulations is unlikely to have any adverse effects. 4. t7egligence, 30 C.F.R. §723.12 (d) KCC takes the position that the failure to republish the blasting schedule at three-month • intervals was inadvertent and thus devoid of any negligence. Good Faith in Attempting to Achieve Compliance, 30 C.F.R. §723.12 (e) KCC's compliance with the Notice of Violation could not have been any more rapid. Specifically, KCC maile3 its blasting schedule to the Jackson County Star on July 12, 1979, the very day upon which KCC received the t]otice of Violation. C. Alleged Violation i7umber Three: "Failure to pass all surface drainage from the disturbed areas through a sediment pond." 1. Background KCC has constructed and installed a sedi- mentation control system. The sedimentation plan was in fact submitted to the Colorado Alined Land Reclamation Board on or about December 13, 1977. -4-