Laserfiche WebLink
date was modified to June 1, 2005. <br />Roy indicated that the individuals who began working on the ponds were no longer at the mine. <br />The purpose of the mid-term review was to find the problems and get the job done. As a result <br />of the mid term review, PR-4 was initiated to address the issues of concern. There was no <br />environmental damage and the ponds are fully functional. The pond 016 will receive 1.3 feet of <br />rock in the spillway. The annual inspections showed that the ponds were functioning. <br />Bob asked if it was an expectation that the "As-Built" be evaluated every year. <br />Sandy stated that the issue was that we expect the construction to match the "As-Built" <br />certification. <br />Jay stated that the response was delayed due to the complexity and length of time necessary to <br />complete a revision to PR-3. <br />The Proposed Civil Penalty originally determined by the Assessment Officer for CV-2005-003 <br />was: <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness (Significant) $500.00 <br />Fault (Negligence) $750.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Failure to Abate $0.00 <br />Total proposed penalty $1,250.00 <br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />Histo <br />A $0.00 penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />I feel that the Assessment Officer was correct in placing the level of seriousness at the mid level <br />of significant. Apparently the ponds have been functioning and there has not been any <br />environmental damage. However, the Division needs to have accurate information regarding the <br />construction of the ponds to determine that the ponds will continue to function in an acceptable <br />manner. <br />Fault <br />I believe that a mid level of negligence is appropriate for the problems outlined in the Notice of <br />Violation. A change in company personnel and a heavy workload appears to have slowed down <br />