Civil Penalties for Violations; Procedures

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Conservation and Natural Resources
  4. Waste Management
  5. Solid Waste Management
  6. General Provisions
  7. Civil Penalties for Violations; Procedures

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. Any person, provided that person is a public authority or a city or county government located within the boundaries of Georgia, violating any provision of this part or rules or regulations adopted pursuant to this part or intentionally or negligently failing or refusing to comply with any final or emergency order of the director issued as provided in this part shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.00 for such violation and for an additional civil penalty not to exceed $500.00 for each day during which such violation continues.Any person other than a public authority or a city or county government located within the boundaries of Georgia violating any provision of this part or intentionally or negligently failing or refusing to comply with any final or emergency order of the director issued as provided in this part shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000.00 per day for each day during which such violation continues.
  2. Whenever the director has reason to believe that any person has violated any provision of this part or any rule or regulation effective under this part or has failed or refused to comply with any final order or emergency order of the director, he may upon written request cause a hearing to be conducted before an administrative law judge appointed by the board.Upon finding that said person has violated any provision of this part or any rule or regulation effective under this part or has failed or refused to comply with any final order or emergency order of the director, the administrative law judge shall issue his decision imposing civil penalties as provided in this Code section.Such hearing and any administrative or judicial review thereof shall be conducted in accordance with subsection (c) of Code Section 12-2-2.
  3. In rendering a decision under this Code section imposing civil penalties, the administrative law judge shall consider all factors which are relevant, including, but not limited to, the following:
    1. The amount of civil penalty necessary to ensure immediate and continued compliance and the extent to which the violator may have profited by failing or delaying to comply;
    2. The character and degree of impact of the violation or failure to comply on the natural resources of the state, especially any rare or unique natural phenomena;
    3. The conduct of the person incurring the civil penalty in promptly taking all feasible steps or procedures necessary or appropriate to comply or to correct the violation or failure to comply;
    4. Any prior violations or failures to comply by such person with regard to statutes, rules, regulations, or orders administered, adopted, or issued by the director;
    5. The character and degree of injuryto or interference with public health or safety which is caused or threatened to be caused by such violation or failure to comply;
    6. The character and degree of injury to or interference with reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened to be caused by such violation or failure; and
    7. The character and degree of intent with which the conduct of the person incurring the civil penalty was carried out.
  4. All civil penalties recovered by the director as provided in this Code section shall be paid into the solid waste trust fund established pursuant to the provisions of Code Section 12-8-27.1.

(Code 1981, §12-8-30.6, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 412, § 1.)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 20.

C.J.S.

- 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 26.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Prior consent order did not amount to criminal punishment to which double jeopardy prohibitions applied.

- Trial court properly denied a solid waste facility operator's double jeopardy plea in bar of prosecution because even though the parties stipulated that the consent order and the criminal action alleged the same nuisance conduct and each proceeding had the same goals of restraint, deterrence, and abatement, the criminal action was not barred by the sanctions imposed in the consent order since the consent order did not amount to criminal punishment to which double jeopardy prohibitions applied. Wilbros, LLC v. State, 294 Ga. 514, 755 S.E.2d 145 (2014).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.