ENFORCE36943 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV) C-85-044 This violation was written far "Failure to promptly to apply approved sail stabilizing practices to topsoiled areas in order to control erosion. Specifically, contour furrows has not been installed in the fall of 1484 on topsoiled slopes of the Mine 3 Pit east of the Mine 3 Haul Road corridor." The operator's representative, Larry Damrau, presented comments in opposition to the facts of the violation. Mr. Damrau indicated, with Dan Mathew's concurrence, that this Notice of Violation had been issued after complete abatement had been achieved. It is Mr. Damrau's belief that it was inappropriate to issue this violation. However, he did not dispute the facts of the violation. It is my opinion that NOV C-85-044 was properly issued by Dan Mathews. The Division assessment officer, Mike Savage proposed the civil penalty assessment: History $ 00.00 Seriousness 00.00 Fault 00.00 Total Proposed Assessment $ 00.00 Dan Mathews presented comments in opposition to Mike Savage's proposed penalty assessment. The history calculation was in error, three violations had occurred within the last 12 months and the history component should be $150.00. Mr. Mathews agreed with the assessment of seriousness as "insignificant" resulting in a $00.00 seriousness component. It is Dan's contention that a Notice of Violation issued for failure to comply with the approved plan should not constitute a fault component equivalent to "unavoidable". He suggested that an assessment for negligence would be more appropriate. In reflection of Dan Mathew's comments, S have adjusted the penalty assessment to reflect the correct history component. I have also adjusted the assessment for fault to reflect medium lack of diligence, with a $500.00 assessment value. Therefore, the amended penalty assessment is as follows: History $ 150.00 Seriousness 00.00 Fault 500.00 Amended Penalty Assessment $ 650.00