ENFORCE32938 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sandy Brown October 29, 2004 Page 5 Conclusion and Recommendation A pattern of violations does exist. Four separate violations and two failure to abate cessation orders were issued on three sepazate inspections during the 12-month period from July 21, 2003 through June 30, 2004. Three of these violations, CV-2003-006, CV- 2003-007, and CV-2003-008 are of different requirements of the Act and Rules and occurred in different locations of the mine site. Two of the violations, one issued in July 2003 (CV-2003-006) and another issued in June 2004 (CV-2004-002) are similar in nature and were cited for related requirements of the Rules. In addition, SCC failed to abate two of the citations (CV-2003-006 and CV-2003-007) within the required time for abatement. The cited violations do not appeaz to be isolated departures from lawful conduct, and therefore a pattern of violation exits at the Yoast Mine operated by SCC. SCC was assessed for intentional conduct on four of these violations including CV-2003- 007, CV-2003-008, CO-2003-011, and CO-2003-012. As stated in the Civil Penalty Assessments, the permittee's failure to comply with conditions of its permit and failure to comply with the abatement steps set out in NOV CV-2003-006 and NOV CV-2003-007 by the required abatement deadlines appears to have been intentional. Following the assessment conference held for CO-2003-012, the fault portion of the civil penalty was changed from intentional to negligent. SCC appeazs to have made operating decisions with respect to reclamation requirements that resulted in noncompliant situations and in some cases environmental damage. However, I do not believe that these are "willful violations" which means an act or omission which violates DMG Rules or SCC permit conditions committed by a person who intends the result which actually occurs. Nor do I believe that any individual acted with intentional disregard or plain indifference to legal requirements. These violations appear to be caused by the unwarranted failure of the permittee to comply with requirements of the DMG Rules and permit conditions. As defined by DMG Rules, "Unwarranted failure to comply" means the failure of a permittee to (1) prevent the occurrence of any violation of his permit or any requirement of these Rules due to indifference, lack of diligence, or lack of reasonable care or (2) the failure to abate any violation of such permit or this article due to indifference, lack of diligence, or lack of reasonable care. Relevant to this situation, it appeazs that SCC failed to prevent the occurrence of the aforementioned violations and failed to abate two of the citations due to lack of diligence and reasonable care. A greater commitment of resources and a higher level of care should be taken by SCC in their sediment and drainage control practices, protection of the hydrologic balance efforts, and contemporaneous reclamation practices in order to effect compliance with permit conditions, and applicable rules and regulations. SCC has not committed the personnel or equipment resources to maintain compliance with permit conditions and applicable regulatory requirements. SCC operates three surface mines in northwest Colorado covering approximately 9,900 acres. During calendar year 2003, ten enforcement actions were taken at these mines. Personnel and equipment are allocated