ENFORCE25192

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 4/25/2001
• Doc Name: Exhibit for Formal Public Hearing
• Violation No.: CV2000009
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

,,. .. ,
'Y'.r :....:,1 ~, t,
ry JA'~r.~ dJ~ 1
Seriousness [Rule 5.04.5(3)(b)]:
The Seriousness component of a proposed assessment may range from SO to S 1750. The amount
assessed for Seriousness depends upon whether the permittee failed to comply with an
administrative standard or a performance standard. This NOV was wri«en for the permittee's
failure to comply with the performance standards of Rule 4.20.1.
In the case of a permittee's failure to comply with performance standads, the amount of [he
Seriousness component is to be further based upon two additional factors: (1) the probability of
the occurrence of the even[ which the violated standard is designed to prevent, and (2) the duration
and extent of the actual or potential damage in terms of azea and impact upon the public and the
environment.
(I) Rule 4:20.1 is designed [o prevent material subsidence damage to structures and renewable
resource lands. In this case, DMG has determined that material subsidence damage has
apparently continued to affect portions of the principal residential structure, garage, water line
and pasture belonging to Ann Tatum. The event that the performance standards of Rule
4.20.1 are designed [o prevent therefore appears to have actually occurred.
(2) Based upon the color photographs taken during the inspection of October 25, 2000, upon the
October 30, 20(10 letter from Ann Tatum to David Berry, and upon the November 1, 2000
DhfG inspection report, it appears that material subsidence damage to the Tatum structures
and property is extensive.
The Seriousness component of this assessment is therefore proposed at $1250, the upper end
of the "Significant" range on the DMG Civil Penalty Worksheet
• Fault [Rule 5.04.5(3)(c)]:
The fault componen: of a proposed civil penal: assessment may range from $0 to $1500.
Assessments for "unavoidable" violations may range from SO to $250. Assessments for violations
that were the result of "negligence" may range from 5250 to $750. Pssessa:ents for violation.; !hat
resulted from "intentional conduct" may rang: from 5750 to $1500.
Based upon the information p-ovided, it appears t;,at tie perm«ee's failure to comply with t.~e
performance standards of Rule 4.20.1 was neither intentional nor unavoidable, but the result of
negligence.
The Fault component of this assessment is therefore proposed at $750, the upper end of the
"Negligence" range on the DbIG Civil Penalty Worksheet
Permittee's Good Faith Efforts in Achieving Compliance [Rule 5.04.5(3)(d)];
As this NOV has yet to be abated, no reduction of this assessment is proposed at this time.
The Total Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment for this NOV is therefore proposed at $2000.