Laserfiche WebLink
Oakridge Energy, Inc. 30- Aug -2013 <br />CV- 2013 -005 Page 2 of 3 <br />Ms. Price stated her only objection to the Division's existing penalty assessment was <br />having the "Fault" negligence factor noted as "high" in the narrative. Ms. Price indicated <br />that OEI responded to the directed on- ground abatement of the drainage diversion issues <br />last year after the 30 -July -2012 inspection, but that she apparently did not understand <br />what was actually required, and therefore directed the contractor to perform only part of <br />the erosion control work required, allowing erosion issues to continue within the permit <br />area until present time. <br />Ms. Talvitie, Ms. Brown and Ms. Price discussed the outstanding permit issues and time <br />frames for compliance. None of the other compliance items described in the Division's <br />30 -July 2012 inspection, and again noted in the 29— August -2012 Division "Request for <br />Minor Revision" letter have been addressed. No permit revision has been submitted by <br />OEI, though a technical revision (TR -17) is now underway by OEI's local engineering <br />consultant. Ms. Brown indicated that the 90 day NOV abatement period had expired as of <br />27- August -2013, and that OEI must immediately request an extension from the Division <br />Director or face additional mandatory penalties. In conclusion, Ms. Price admitted OEI <br />had unfortunately "dropped the ball" on these permit compliance issues. <br />The proposed civil penalty originally determined by the Assessment Officer for CV- <br />2013 -005 was: <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Number of Days of Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total proposed penalty $1,250.00 <br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />History <br />A $0.00 penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />I believe that a violation did occur and under the seriousness category the level of <br />moderate was appropriate. <br />Fault <br />As a result of the testimony and discussions, coupled with failure of the operator to <br />appear at the requested Assessment Conference through an admitted oversight on its part, <br />I find that the civil penalty originally proposed by the Division in the Fault category, <br />"negligence ", is justified. Although seemingly unintentional, OEI's record of <br />misunderstanding, lack of timeliness in communication, and overlooking necessary steps <br />2 <br />