Laserfiche WebLink
6. There is no dispute that the Respondent violated C.R.S. § 34-32-116(1) by failing to sample its groundwater <br />monitoring well and submit sample results to the Division with its annual report. The issue is the <br />appropriate remedy. <br />7. C.R.S. § 34-32-124(2) provides that if the Board determines that any provision of this article or any notice, <br />pernut, or regulation has been violated, it may issue a cease and desist order. <br />8. A cease and desist order is not appropriate in this case because there is no continuing violation, nor may the <br />Respondent take any corrective action to address the violation. Corrective action would be to submit <br />monitoring results for 2001; since the Respondent failed to take a sample during 2001, it is not possible to <br />correct this violation. <br />9. C.R.S. 34-32-124(7) provides that a person who violates any provision of a permit issued under this article <br />shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollazs per day nor more than one thousand <br />dollazs per day for each day during which such violation occurs. <br />10. The Division recommends a penalty assessment for one day for this violation. <br />11. Since the Respondent has changed the personnel who is responsible for ensuring compliance with this <br />monitoring requirement, it appeazs that it has made a good faith effort to see that this violation does not <br />happen again. Based on this effort, the minimum penalty is appropriate. <br />ORDER <br />Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Boazd assesses a penalty of $100, which is due <br />within thirty days of the date of this Order. <br />DATED this ~ day of , 2002. <br />//FS~~C~OL~O~R)ADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />G~~l,1c-c~u`~ <br />Ronald W. Cattany, Director <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />