Laserfiche WebLink
suspect wet spot was not known. Mr. Lewicki contends that it was <br /> moisture from the snow melt, not instability. If the sloughing <br /> was a stability problem, the embankment would have gone, since <br /> the pond has been filled many times since the sloghing was <br /> observed. This may be true, but at the time the NOV was issued <br /> there was cause for concern. I believe it was appropriate to <br /> include it in the NOV. <br /> The proposed civil penalty was: <br /> History $50.00 <br /> Seriousness $500.00 <br /> Fault $750.00 <br /> Good Faith $0.00 <br /> Total $1300.00 <br /> Seriousness <br /> I agree with the proposed civil penalty. There were maintenance <br /> problems. The biggest concern, in my mind, were the ponds that <br /> needed to be cleaned. <br /> Fault <br /> Mid-Continent Resources had plans to conduct maintenance <br /> activities at the mine. They had secured money from the bank and <br /> bankruptcy court in order to clean ponds. As such, they <br /> requested a reduction in the fault component. After considering <br /> the information, I do not believe a reduction is appropriate. <br /> Although, I realize the difficulty the operator has in obtaining <br /> funds, this does not relieve them of the maintenance <br /> responsibilities at the mine site, nor do I feel it is <br /> appropriate to consider it a reason for reducing the penalty. <br /> Good Faith <br /> A good faith reduction is not recommended. <br /> Settlement Agreement Penalty Proposed $1300.00 <br />