Laserfiche WebLink
I2(;V BY ~ U. G. &S. : 12- Iti- 0 R:26AM : I71A8462427 ~ D. G. &S, : q 4 <br />FROM FaX N0. 17198462427 Ile c. 13 2606 08: 29AM P4 <br />Seriousness [Rule 5.04.5(3)(h)l: <br />The Seriousness component of a proposed assessment may range. from SO to E175U. The amount <br />assessed for Seriousness depends upon whether the petm;ttce failed to comply with an <br />edmittistrative ctandard or a performance standard. This NOV was vtilttn for the permittec's <br />failtue [o comply with the perfortnartu: standards of Rule 4.20.1. <br />In the case of a pcmtittce's failure to comply with performance standards, the amount of the <br />Seriousrtesx component u to be further Fused upon two additional factors: (1) the probability of <br />the ocwrrence of the event which the violated standard ix dcsigrttd to prevent, and (2) the duration <br />and extent of the actual or potcndal damage in [erne of atua and impac[ upon the public and [he <br />environment. <br />(1) Rule 4.20.1 is designed to prevent material subsidence dtltrage to struc[mu and renewable <br />rcaounc-hods. !n this case, DMG h:u determined that ntaterinl subsidence damage has <br />apparently continued to afTeet portions of the principal residential structtue, garage, wa4:r lino <br />and pasttae lxlonging to Ann Tatum. The event that the performance standards o[ Rule <br />4.20.1 are dexi~ ed to pravam therefore appears to have actually occurred. <br />(2) Based upon the color photographs taken daring the impaction of October 25, 2000, upon [he <br />October 30, 20001etter from Ann Tatum to David Bary, and upon the November I, 2 WO <br />DMG inspection report, it appears that material subsidence danwge so the Tatum ctruuturas <br />and property is eztensivc. <br />The Seriousness component of thin aaaesemevt [s therefore proposed !u 3125D, the upper end <br />of the "SegtdflmnY' range on the DMG Civll Penalty Wotlcsheet. <br />Fault [Rule 5.04.5(3)(c}]: <br />The fault component of a proposed civil pettalry assessment may range from SD w 51500. <br />Assessments for'Unavoidahle" violations may range from SO to 5250. Assessments for violations <br />that were the result of "negligence" may range frgm S2$0 to S7S0. Axxexsments for violations that <br />resulted from "intentonal conduct" may range from 3750 to 53500. <br />Baud upon the information provided, it appears that the permittee's failuto to comply with the <br />performance standards of Rule 4.20.1 was neither intentional nor unavoidable, but the result of <br />- -. -ttvgligertce.- ~~ <br />The FaWt component of thLc asst~ent Is therefore proposed at S75U, the upper cod of the <br />"Negligence" range on the DMG Civll Penalty Worksheet <br />Permittee•x Good Faith EfForts in Aehievin® Compliance (Rule 5.04.5(3)(d)]; <br />As [Iris NOV has yet to he abated, nn rcducuort of this assessment is proposed at this time. <br />The Total Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment for this NOS is therefore proposed at 32000. <br />