Laserfiche WebLink
i. <br /> <br />do not appear to be from a loss of moisture and are indicative of <br />stability problems. The loose surficial material was not described <br />to the staff prior to placement, was part of the dam and was <br />experiencing stability problems. The staff should have had an <br />opportunity to review the total dam design and might have required <br />modification of design or additional erosion control measures. The <br />evidence as presented by Mr. Lewicki indicated that the internal <br />component of the compacted dam was stable and the level of <br />seriousness was in fact very low and as a result the civil penalty <br />was reduced to $250.00. <br />As a result of the discussion, I believe that the operator did not <br />include the material, which sloughed, in the original design as an <br />oversight and.that this material was an additional .item in the <br />embankment construction to encourage revegetation;. success. <br />However, the stability problems of this ^growth medium"'.placed on <br />a compacted slope was avoidable, therefore, I reduced the: civil <br />penalty for fault to $250.00. <br />Also, the operator owes $50.00 for having a history of one NOV in <br />the past 12 months. Mr. Rerr requested good faith due'to rapid <br />response and noted that the abatement period was exceedingly. short. <br />After consideration of the operators comments and a review of the <br />record, no good faith was credited as the measures taken by the <br />operator were prudent and not extraordinary in nature. Therefore, <br />the total civil penalty due from the operator for this Notice of <br />Violation Number C-93-057 was set at $550.00. <br />