ENFORCE37342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

't Michael Long December 17, 1997 Page 2 "seriousness" component of the penalty was assessed in the high "significant" range carrying a fine of $1,250 and fault was assessed at low "negligence" carrying a fine of $250. While the assessment was based on the fact that slope failures could potentially create significant environmental impacts by blocking the stream, this particular slope failure did not significantly impede (if it impeded at all) stream flow and MCC believes the "seriousness" component should be based on the actual impacts of the violation rather than an what might have happened. Hence, MCC proposes to accept this NOV and pay the penalty provided the "seriousness" assessment is adjusted down to low "significant" with a fine of $1,000. The last NOV, captioned CV-97-110, was issued after Mr. Boulay discovered that work was continuing in the area of the toe of a cutslope above the materials storage bench in violation of a previous verbal directive he had given MCC to cease all work on the cutslope until a formal minor revision was approved. The "seriousness" component of the penalty was assessed as high "significant" carrying a fine of $1,250 and the fault component was assessed as mid-range "intentional" carrying a fine of $1,250. This NOV, in particular, is of concern to MCC which adamantly denies that the subject activity caused significant damage and further denies that it deliberately violated Mr. Boulay's directive. Rather, MCC maintains that the work that occurred after the directive was in the nature of cleanup activity at the toe of the cutslope for the purpose of maintaining a drainage channel and to promote slope stability on the idle project pending approval of the minor revision. MCC understood Mr. Boulay's verbal directive to say that there should be no further expansion of the cutslope until a minor revision was approved but believed that cleanup activity (removal of previously cut soil) was necessary and not inconsistent with the directive. At worst, the apparent intentional violation was no more than a miscommunication arising from a field conversation for which MCC accepts its share of the responsibility but for which MCC maintains it is being too harshly punished. Thus, MCC proposes to accept this NOV and pay the penalty provided the "seriousness" component is adjusted to mid-range "low/moderate" carrying a fine of $500 and the "fault" component is adjusted to mid-range "negligence" carrying a fine of $500. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ~' ~c ~~~ R. Kirk Mueller