Laserfiche WebLink
~, ~ a ~ • • <br />Justification for Proposed Settlement Agreement for NUV 83-19 <br />During the assessment conference, it was apparent there were no <br />disagreements between the operator and the staff with reyard to the facts <br />of the situation. The primary issue discussed was whether or not such <br />actions constituted a violation. Uf particular concern to the operator, <br />was that his actions were undertaken in an effort to prevent a more <br />serious environmental problem. Topsoil material was used to reenforce a <br />dike between the pond and stream during a t une of high flow late at night. <br />I believe the operator acted very responsibly in repairing the damaged <br />embankment. Unfortunately, topsoil material was used for that repair. I <br />do believe the operator should be given credit for his efforts at <br />preventing a much more serious environmental problem (the possible <br />washout of the pond itself). Therefore, I am reducing the civil penalty <br />to ~0 for this violation. This is justified because both the Fault and <br />Seriousness components can be reduced to $0 under the specific guidelines <br />in the regulations. <br />