Laserfiche WebLink
K~~ bt : U. v. &~. : l'1- 13- U H:ISAM1I L /1:fi54tiL41 / -. D. G. &£7. H 4 <br />FROM Ft~X N0. 1719(3462427 Dec. 13 2006 08:29gh1 P4 <br />I <br />Serioustess [Rule 5.04.5(3)(n)J: <br />The Seriousness component of a proposed assessment rttay range from AO [n $1750. The amount <br />assessed for Seriousness depends upon whether the petmittec failed to comply widt en <br />administrative slandazd or a performance standard. This NOV was written for tfte permittcc's <br />failure to comply with the perfottnancu standards of Rule 4.20.1. <br />In the case of a pcmtittee's failure to comply with performance standards, the amount of the <br />SCrlonSfleSS component u to lx fiuther based upon two addiliooal factors: (1) the probability of <br />the occurrence of the event which the violated standard ix designed [o prevent, and (Z) the duration <br />and extent of the actual or potential damage in terms of aros and impact upon the public and the <br />environment. <br />(l) Rule 4.20.1 is designed to prevent material subsidence damage W structures and renew¢ble <br />rosourrc lands. In this case, DMG hai duturroincd that materi¢! subsidence damage lrns <br />apparently continued to affect ponioos of the principal residential strucrtue, garage, wau:r line <br />and pasture belonging to Ann Tatrmr. The event that the pertnrmancc standards of Rulc <br />4.20.1 are designed to preveot theriore appears to !rave actually occuned. <br />(2) Based upon rho color photographs taken during the inspection nl' October 25, 2000, upon the <br />October 30, 20t)O letter from Ann Tatum to David Berry,'and upon the November !, 2IX)0 <br />DMG inspection repon, it appears that material subsldence damage to the Tatum struutun:s <br />and prnpercy is extensive. <br />The Seriousness component of this assesment is therefore proposed at 51250, the upper end <br />of the "SlgnfficanY' range on the DMG Cicll Penalty Worksheet. <br />Fault (Rule 5.04.5(3)(c}]: <br />The fault component of a proposed civil pntalty asseesment may range from $0 to $15W. <br />Assessments fur "unavoidable" violations may range from $0 to $250. Assessments for violations <br />that were the result of "negligence" may range from 5250 to $750. Asxessmenu~ for violations that <br />resulted from "intentional conduct" may range from $750 to $1500. <br />Based upon the information provided. it appears that the permittee's failure to comply with the <br />performance standards of Rule 4.20-1 was neither intentional nor unavoidable, but the result of <br />.. .. ...... _ _.. Meligcra•.e.. - .. <br />The Fault component of this assessment is therefore proposed at $750, the upper end of the <br />"Negligence" range on the DMG Civil Penalty Workshcet. <br />PerntiNee's Good Faith Efforts in Achieving Compliance [Rule 5.04.3(3)(d)j; <br />As [his NQV has yet to be abated, nn reduction of this asxsxment ix propated at this time. <br />The Total Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment for this NOV is therefore proposed at 52000. <br />