My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-06-21_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-06-21_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:13:38 PM
Creation date
8/3/2010 8:21:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
6/21/2010
Doc Name
Response to the Allegations
From
Holme Roberts & Owen LLLp
To
AGO
Email Name
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Cheryl Linden, Esq. <br />June 21, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />provisions in the Reason to Believe Letter that are alleged to be a violation. <br />Although Cotter believes it has not violated the statutes and regulations <br />identified in the letter, it recognizes the importance of taking action for the <br />situation at Ralston Creek. To that end, Cotter is working with its engineering <br />consultants, construction contractors, and a water treatment company to install <br />a treatment system to commence treatment of all water that reports to Sump <br />Number One no later than July 31, 2010, consistent with Corrective Action #1. <br />Cotter, however, strongly disagrees with Corrective Action #2, which is mine <br />dewatering and water discharge treatment, and Corrective Action #3 to the <br />extent that it requires financial warranty for mine dewatering and water <br />discharge treatment.' All references in this answer to Corrective Action #2 <br />should be deemed to include such financial warranty requirements. Cotter <br />believes that Corrective Action #2 is unsupported by substantial evidence when <br />the record is considered as a whole, unnecessary, and impractical. <br />1. Response to the Alleged Violation <br />The first statutory provision cited in the Reason to Believe better is Colo. Rev. <br />Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(c), which provides: "Reclamation plans and the <br />implementation thereof shall conform to the following general requirements: <br />... (c) Acid-forming or toxic-producing material that has been mined shall be <br />handled in a manner that will protect the drainage system from pollution." The <br />Reason to Believe Letter does not identify what DRMS alleges is being <br />"handled," and therefore does not identify the facts alleged to constitute the <br />violation, as required by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-124(1). Moreover, Cotter's <br />Environmental Protection Plan, dated April 19, 2010 ("EPP"), indicates that <br />acid-forming materials are not an issue at the Schwartzwalder Mine..5ee EPP <br />at 2-1 ("No ... acid-forming materials will be ... handled :.. within the permit <br />area. The mine is not, nor is it expected to become, acid generating."); 4-1 <br />("No acid mine drainage-forming materials exist within the permit area."); 6-1 <br />1 Cotter will be responding to other aspects of Corrective Action 43 as <br />part of the Technical Revision process. <br />41478373 v3 den
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.