Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Seriousness <br />Based en the fact that M5. Binns observed no evidence of erosion or offsite <br />sediment deposition at the time of the inspection, and based on the limited <br />size of the disturbances and the distance to the nearest perennial stream, the <br />potential for environmental damage would appear to be low. However, given the <br />lack of any ground cover or sediment control measures at the sites, some <br />potential for accelerated erosion and sediment generation did exist. I concur <br />with the proposed assessment of 5250.00 for seriousness. <br />Fault <br />The operator representatives acknowledged that they were aware of the permit <br />requirement for sediment control berms and that, at the subject sites, "it <br />just didn't get done." It may very well be that sediment control methods <br />other than berms may be preferable for reclaimed well sites, for a number of <br />reasons mentioned by Mr. Shrestha and Mr. O'Hara, and the operator is <br />encouraged to pursue such alternatives with the Division through appropriate <br />permit revisions. Nevertheless, the fact in this instance is that the permit <br />required berms and the operator was negligent in failing to insure that the <br />permit requirement was met. I concur with the proposed assessment of 5500.00 <br />for fault. <br />Good Faith <br />The NOV was issued July 2 with an abatement deadline of July 26. The berm was <br />constructed on July 16. I stated at the conference that the facts and <br />timeframes did not appear to demonstrate extraordinary effort or that the <br />abatement was accomplished in the shortest possible time. No evidence to the <br />contrary was presented, and so I propose no reduction for good faith. <br />Settlement Agreement <br />Civil Penalty Proposal <br />History 50. 00 <br />Seriousness 5250. 00 <br />Fault 5500. 00 <br />Good Faith $ 0. 00 <br />Total Proposed <br />Penalty 5750.00 <br />DTM/yjb <br />4766E <br />