ENFORCE20986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOV C-89-018 NOV C-89-018 was written for "failure to submit designs ditches". Jeff Clap ton explained that he observed a di maintenance. When the permit was reviewed to determine for the ditch, he realized that the design had not been review of the permit identified other diversion ditches abatement required the operator to bring all collection into compliance witn Rule 4.05.3(3). for diversion tch that needed some the specific design submitted. A further without designs. The and diversion ditches The operator did not contest the facts of the violation. Mr. Trabits did contest the proposed civil penalty, specifically the wording used in the seriousness component as further discussed below. The proposed civil penalty was: History $ 0.00 Seriousness 100,00 Fault 250.00 Good Faith 0.00 TOTAL X66 History There have been no NOV's or CO's during the past twelve months. Seriousness Mr. Trabits objected to the second sentence of the proposed assessment whichhhp~ says: "The Division was obstructed to a minor degree ir~yt~.FCtrnFl~i~i9RdtuAUetY(:eAc(~'RIekA.. law. He felt this could be interpreted to mean that Yf (C4vcc)'~.,r~,-~'~'~.!='T intentionally disobeyed the law. He stated this was not true. The lack of designs was an oversight, and~G#fi did not attempt to obstruct the 1 aw. Cr~vcc The wording used by the assessment officer is taken from Rule 5,04.5(3)(b)(ii) for the assessment of administrative violations. The Division has to assess the extent to which enforcement was obstructed by the violation. In this case I believe it was an oversight by the operator and the Division during the review process, and the extent was minimal as reflected by the proposed penalty. Fault As stated above, the violation occurred due to an oversight during the review process. I agree with the proposed penalty,