CORRESPONDENCE_2009-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert McClellon applied the criteria set forth in PRC section 45016 in assessing the civil penalties set forth in the NOPA. Mr. McClellon considered the purpose of imposing monetary penalties, which included achieving compliance; protecting the environment; protecting public health and safety; deterring future misconduct; and eliminating unfair business advantage gained from noncompliance. All three violations were repeatedly cited by EHD personnel for failure to remediate these deficiencies at every inspection performed on the site between November 2003 and December 2011. Owner/Operator was repeatedly reminded that the Notice and Order was still in effect, and on December 9, 2009, was specifically warned that failure to abate the violations "may result in additional enforcement actions." Mr. McClellon viewed each of the three Title 27 violations as continuing, and calculated the penalty from December 14, 2008 (the date the Notice and Order became final ) to February 14, 2012, a period of 1155 days." Whereas PRC section 45011 allows for a civil penalty of up to $ 5,000 per day per violation, Mr. McClellon imposed penalties that were one percent of the maximum ($ 50 per day). In selecting a "base amount' for each violation, Mr. McClellon considered PRC section 45011, subdivision (a), the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation; he then applied the other factors as matters in aggravation or mitigation of the base amount, as follows: 27 CCR section 20820 (Inadequate Drainage/Erosion Control), 27 CCR section 20650 (Inadequate Grading of Fill Surfaces), 27 CCR section 20750 (Inadequate Site Maintenance): Mr. McClellon used a base civil penalty of $ 50 per day; he found that there was a chronic pattern of noncompliance (PRC section 45016, subdivision (c)), and that violations were intentional (PRC section 45016, subdivision (d)), as factors in aggravation, with a 10 percent multiplier for each factor (10 percent total). He found no factors in mitigation. He calculated the civil penalty as follows: $ 50 per day x 1155 days = $ 57,750. $ 57,750 + ($57,750 x 10) _ $ 63,525. $ 63,525 x 3 (violations) _ $ 190,575. Amount of Civil Penalties 27 CCR section 20820 (Inadequate Drainage/Erosion Control), 27 CCR section 20650 (Inadequate Grading of Fill Surfaces), 27 CCR section 20750 (Inadequate Site Maintenance). EHD seeks a civil penalty for this violation of $ 50 per day (base amount), which is one percent of the maximum $5,000 per day authorized by PRC section 45011. This amount reflects the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, taking into account protection of public health and safety and the environment (PRC section 45016, subdivision (a)). By failing to correct these violations, owner/operator has increased the risk to public health, safety and the environment. Although having more than three years to do so, owner/operator has not corrected the violation, and the violations/ circumstances leading to the violations were not due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the violator (PRC section 45016, subdivisions (b) and (1)). EHD applied