Laserfiche WebLink
Civil Penalty Assessment <br />Proposed Penalty Assessment <br />History $ 150.00 <br />Seriousness 500.00 <br />Fault 500.00 <br />Good Faith <br />Total $1150.00 <br />History <br />The History component was not disputed. <br />Seriousness <br />The original assessment of $500.00 reflected a moderate degree of <br />seriousness, and the Assessment Officer indicated that no evidence <br />had been presented of actual stability problems associated with the <br />cited violation. An absence of actual damage potentially <br />associated with underdrain construction or foundation preparation <br />was confirmed by Division representatives during the assessment <br />conference. I indicated during the conference that a lower degree <br />of seriousness might be warranted if the operator could demonstrate <br />that quarterly certification reports were on file for the periods <br />of time in question (organic material and topsoil removal, and <br />underdrain construction) indicating that construction was in <br />accordance with the approved plan. <br />Information submitted by the operator subsequent to the assessment <br />conference includes a Division inspection report of February 19, <br />1981. The report indicates that underdrain construction had <br />recently been completed. Also included in the operator's submittal <br />were certified density testing reports of February, 1981 and <br />August, 1981. Neither report contains a statement of general <br />compliance; the reports are clearly specific to fill placement and <br />compaction. No reports were submitted for the period prior to <br />February, 1981. The information submitted subsequent to the <br />assessment conference does not provide a basis for reduction of the <br />proposed penalty for seriousness. I concur with the original <br />assessment of $500.00, reflecting a low/moderate Seriousness. <br />Fault <br />Mr. Reschke argued that even if the Regulations had specified <br />critical phase certifications, the operator's understanding during <br />the time in question was that the quarterly certification reports <br />would suffice, and the Division had not counseled otherwise. In <br />support of this contention, the operator submitted a Division <br />inspection report of April 6, 1982, which contained a reminder <br />regarding the quarterly inspection requirement of 4.10.2. <br />The record appears to indicate that prior to February 1981, <br />