My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (146)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (146)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 7:43:10 AM
Creation date
10/17/2012 8:40:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP)
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
177
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
Mr. Doug Bowman -2- June 22, 1984 <br /> In the case of both cessation orders, damage did occur, therefore, $875.00 is <br /> assessed for probability of occurrence. In both cases, water containing <br /> suspended solids in excess of effluent limitations was discharged into the <br /> receiving streams. The duration of actual or potential damage is felt to be <br /> large given that a continuous discharge was occurring although the extent of <br /> damage was small given the high flow of the receiving stream and the high <br /> suspended solids level. Based on the above, $425.00 is assessed for duration <br /> and $100.00 is assessed for extent of damage. <br /> The fault component is broken into two separate categories: 1 . Those <br /> violations that occurred due to negligence; and, 2. Those violations that <br /> occurred due to a greater degree of fault than negligence. Both violations <br /> best fit in the category of negligence. The maximum of $750.00 for negligence <br /> is proposed for both violations. In both cases, the Division believes that <br /> the operation was negligent. At both sites, the operator was negligent in not <br /> completing the required sediment control system. At the rock tunnel, the <br /> operator was also negligent in improper disposal of wet waste materials. At <br /> the Mine No. 2 bin pad, the operator was negligent in storing coal on the <br /> bench area. <br /> The above is a brief summary of the Division' s reasoning for the proposed <br /> civil penalties. If you wish to contest the fact of the violations and/or the <br /> proposed civil penalty, you must sign and return the enclosed Request for <br /> Conference form. <br /> If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. <br /> Si cerely, <br /> Jim Herron <br /> Re amation Specialist <br /> JH/th <br /> Enclosures <br /> cc: Mr. Dave Sturges <br /> Doc. No. 2260 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.