My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE133247
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
400000
>
PERMFILE133247
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:33:57 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 1:00:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980006
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
KERR COAL RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION LETTER 7/20/79
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 11
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
<br />Alleged violation number three reflects <br />btr. Fritz's judgment that the existing sedimen- <br />tation ponds do not provide adequate sedimenta- <br />tion control. Specifically, the Clotice reflects <br />the fact that PIr. Fritz felt that sedimentation <br />ponds or other control structures should be in- <br />stalled at two specific locations in the area of <br />I:CC's surface mining operations. In this regard, <br />KCC had already scheduled the construction of a <br />sedimentation pond in the area beneath the double <br />topsoil storage area which was mentioned by Dtr. <br />Fritz. In the second area, located upstream <br />from sedimentation pond number four, I:CC has <br />scheduled the construction of a diversion ditch <br />to assure that all run off from the relevant <br />drainage passes through sedimentation pond num- <br />ber four. <br />2. History of Previous Violations, 30 C.F.R. 5723.12(b) <br />Again, KCC notes that it has no previous <br />violations. <br />iousness. 30 C.F.R. 5723.12 <br />• Probability of Occurrence <br />.The area-below the double topsoil storage <br />site has only recently reached the operational <br />posture in which it would receive drainage from <br />Y.CC's_-mining operations. Further, due to the <br />very arid climate of Jackson County, Colorado, <br />there have been no discharges cahich would re- <br />quire the existence of a sedimentation pond <br />since the time this-area was placed in a posi- <br />tion xo receive-discharge from a disturbed area. <br />Thus, the probability of-the occurrence of the <br />environmental harm which the performance stan- <br />dard was designed to prevent is virtually in- <br />significant. 'r7ith respect to the area upstream <br />from sedimentation pond number four, I:CC contends <br />that the number four pond provides more than ade- <br />quate sedimentation control for the relevant <br />drainage, thereby-rendering the probability of <br />occurrence insignificant. These same factors , <br />demonstrate that the extent of potential or ac- <br />tual damage from failure to install the suggested <br />sedimentation control structures is de minimis. <br />Extent of Potential or Actual Damages <br />Due to the absence of actual discharges as <br />a consequence of the arid climate, the potential <br />• -g- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.