Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />the thirty days after the abatement deadline, the Division also assessed mandatory daily penalties <br />for those thirty days pursuant to C.R.S § 34-33-123(8)(1) and Rule 5.04.6(3)-(4). <br />Rule 5.04.6(4) requires the Division to take enforcement action in addition to the NOV and CO <br />against EFC due to EFC's failure to abate the violations in the thirty days after the NOV's <br />abatement deadline. Revoking the Southfield Mine Permit No. C-1981-014 is the appropriate <br />alternative, as revocation will prevent EFC's violations from reoccurring and, concurrently with <br />revocation, the Division can seek forfeiture of the performance bond to complete reclamation of <br />the remaining Southfield Mine. In order to revoke permit no. C-1981-014 under C.R.S § 34-33- <br />123(7), the Division must first establish that a pattern of violations exists and then issue a Show <br />Cause Order, unless the Administrator finds that a show case order would be demonstrably <br />unjust. <br />Pattern of Violations <br />Rule 5.03.3(2) states that the "Division may determine that a pattern of violations exists or has <br />existed, based upon two or more inspections of the permit area within any 12 -month period after <br />considering all the circumstances...." Of the three circumstances identified, all three apply. <br />First, EFC has violated the same or related requirements of the Act, the Rules, and the C-1981- <br />014 permit conditions and the Division has cited EFC's violations on more than one occasion. <br />Second, EFC has violated different requirements of the Act, the Rules, and the C-1981-014 <br />permit and the Division has cited EFC's violations on more than one occasion. Third, EFC's <br />violations are not isolated departures from lawful behavior. <br />Show Cause Order <br />Section 34-33-123(7) states that when the Division determines that a pattern of violations exists, <br />the Division must issue a Show Cause Order to revoke or suspend the permit if the permittee's <br />pattern of violation satisfies either prong of a two -prong test; that the violations (1) are or were <br />caused by the unwarranted failure of the permittee to comply with any requirements of the Act, <br />the Rules, or any permit conditions; or (2) are or were willfully caused by the permittee. EFC's <br />pattern of violations satisfies both prongs of the test. <br />First, EFC has not provided any justification to the Division regarding its pattern of cited <br />violations, which consist of EFC's failure to complete its remaining reclamation obligations. <br />Therefore, EFC's pattern of violations was not warranted and satisfies the first prong. <br />