Laserfiche WebLink
<br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />History <br />A $0.00 penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />I believe that a $250.00 penalty is warranted for seriousness. There is no stability problem with <br />refuse pile 5-A. The pile is still under construction and the operator understands that either the <br />pile must extend to the permanent stabilized ditch or a new ditch will have to be constructed. All <br />waters originating on the pile or routed using the in-pit ditch are flowing to the sediment pond. <br />However, allowing water to pond on the surface of the refuse pile is a violation. <br />Fault <br />I believe that a $250.00 penalty is warranted for fault. The permit was ambiguous in regards to <br />ponding of water and the use of temporary ditches. The plan allowed for the final ditch to be <br />built knowing that the refuse pile could only tie into this ditch upon completion of the refuse pile. <br />Also, when using heavy equipment during pile construction, some ponding of water may be <br />unavoidable. The question is how much ponding is too much. Also, the use of temporary <br />ditches and control of erosion should have been clearly addressed by the company. <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed <br />I concur with 1 day. <br />Good Faith. <br />I concur with the Assessment Officer that good faith is not warranted. <br />Settlement Aqreement Penalty <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $250.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total Penalty $500.00 <br />