ENFORCE33290 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Justification for the Proposed Settlement Agreement for fJ.O.V. 83-31 At the Assessment Conference, the fact of a violation was not contested. There was, however, consideraole discussion concerning mitigating factors which bear on the question of the amount of civil penalty. Division staff proposed a civil penalty as follows: History - $0.00 Seriousness - $200.00 Fault - $500.00 Division staff also suggested that a good faith reduction would be appropriate in this case. Based on the evidence presented at the Assessment Conference, I am proposing that the History and Seriousness components remain as proposed by the Division staff at $0.00 and $200.00, respectively, for the reasons outlined in the memo from Mike Savage, dated December 28, 19133. There was considerable discussion regarding the Fault component. It is my determination that the Fault component should be reduced to the minimum allowable in the negligence category, or $250.00, based on the following. The only failing in this case was that TBM did not submit the certification as required far sediment pond 15-P19. The certification actually took place in February of 1983. In a submittal by the company at approximately that time, several other certifications were submitted to the Division. Due to clerical error, the certification of the pond in question was omitted from that submission. Since the substantive act of the certification had occurred, the Fault component must be reduced to a minimum level within the negligence category for failure to complete the paperwork. There was negligence, however, since 78M had been notified of the problem in early October and failed to correct it in a timely manner. The violation was issued on November 22, 1983. On November 23, 1983, prior to the company even receiving the Notice, the Division received the certification. This extremely rapid resolution of the problem deserves a good faith reduction of $300.00. The total proposed civil penalty, tnerefore, is $150.OU.