Laserfiche WebLink
Justification of Settlement 2 November 29, 1985 <br />and runoff generated by a 10-year event. Also, the ponds have not been <br />cleaned since they were constructed. The Division could not make a <br />determination of compliance with Rule 4.05.6(3)(a) and (b), which requires the <br />operator to provide minimum sediment storage. In this case however, the <br />operator provided abatement information showing there was sufficient storage <br />volume. I am therefore, proposing to reduce the seriousness component to <br />$0.00. <br />Fault <br />The proposed penalty is $250 for negligence. I agree with this. The <br />operator's responsibility is to maintain the ponds in compliance and they are <br />responsible for establishing the specific methods to do this. They were aware <br />a plan needed to be developed but they had not done so. <br />Good Faith <br />No good faith was proposed. In the conference the staff recommended a good <br />faith reduction based on the extraordinary effort demonstrated by PCC to <br />survey the ponds and develop a p]an for monitoring sediment. PCC explained <br />that several people were immediately assigned to develop a plan. They worked <br />with the MLR staff and various alternatives were considered. The information <br />was submitted to the Division prior to the abatement deadlines. Thus, I am <br />proposing a reduction of $250 for good faith. <br />Final Civil Penalty <br />History $ 0.00 <br />Seriousness $ 0.00 <br />Fault $250.00 <br />Good Faith -250.00 <br />Total $ 0.00 <br />