Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> i <br /> File No. C-017-81 -2- June 4, 1982 <br /> The duration of damage is short, since the snow and debris was cleaned <br /> up and the berm was rebuilt on April 29, eight days after the problem was <br /> noted during the inspection of April 21. <br /> 3. Extent of damage <br /> a. insignificant . . . . . .. . ..... . ... . .. Value of 0 <br /> b. slight . ... . .. . . .. . ... . .. . .. . . .. . . Value of 1 <br /> C. small .. . . . ... .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. Value of 2 <br /> d. medium ..... .. . .. ... . . . .. . .. .. . . .. Value of 3 <br /> e. large ... . .. ... . . .. .. . ... . . . . ... . . Value of 4 <br /> The extent of damage is considered to be small. <br /> The total penalty assessed for seriousness is: $328.00 <br /> 3x2x2 = 12r64 = .1875 x $1,750.00 = $328.00 <br /> Fault - Maximum Penalty of $1,500.00 <br /> Fault is divided into three separate units: <br /> 1. If the violation was unavoidable despite the exerciese of reasonable <br /> care, no assessment for fault will be made. <br /> 2. If a violation occurred because of negligence, i.e. , due to indifference, <br /> lack of diligence, or lack of reasonable care, an assessment of at least $250.00, <br /> but not more than $750.00, will be made. <br /> 3. If a violation occurred because of reckless knowing or intentional <br /> conduct, an assessment of at least $750.00, but not more than $1,500.00, will <br /> be made. <br /> This violation occurred during snow removal operations and fits the category <br /> of negligence. The equipment operator may not have been aware of the location <br /> of the berm. However, if this was the case, it reflects a certain amount of <br /> negligence on the part of the mine operator in that the situation was not <br /> anticipated and measures had not been taken to mark the location of the berm <br /> during deep snow conditions. Penalty assessed for fault: $500.00 <br /> TOTAL PENALTY (rounded off) : $825.00 <br /> /mt <br />