Laserfiche WebLink
The purpose of an RTB is to provide due process by giving an operator <br />reasonable notice that the Division believes the operator is in violation of its permit, <br />the Mined Land Reclamation Act or the rules promulgated pursuant to the Act. See <br />§ 34-32-124(1) C.R.S; Electric Power Research Institute v. City and County of <br />Denver, 737 P.2d 822, 828 (Colo. 1987) ("No particular or specific procedure is <br />mandated by due process considerations so long as the basic elements of opportunity <br />for a hearing and judicial review are present."); Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Colorado <br />Board of Resents, 258 F.Supp..515, 528 (D. Colo. 1966)( "due process ... does not <br />guarantee any particular mode of procedure but ... does require adequate notice of <br />opposing claims, reasonable opportunity to prepare and meet them in an orderly <br />hearing adapted to the nature of the case."). The RTB should set forth the facts to <br />allow the operator to understand the alleged violation and to prepare a defense. <br />Colorado Board of Regents, 258 F. Supp. at 528 ("The test as to whether a party has <br />been afforded procedural due process is one of `fundamental fairness' in the light of the <br />total circumstances."). Not every fact needs to be alleged; the Division is allowed to <br />develop its facts at the hearing. § 24-4-105(7) C.R.S. As stated above, Cotter has <br />sufficient knowledge of the facts underlying the RTB. Electric Power Research <br />Institute, 737 P.2d at 828 ("there is no infringement of due process rights unless a party <br />has been prejudiced by the procedure to which he objects.,,) Cotter does not assert that it <br />has been unable to identify the nature of the claims against it and makes no claim of <br />prejudice. <br />Cotter also denies that it has committed any violations of the statutes and <br />regulations. Cotter's Response, p. 2. However, in documents in the permit file, <br />Cotter all but concedes the violations as to the alluvial ground water. For example, in <br />Cotter's proposed EPP (referred to as Whetstone Report) and in its technical memo <br />dated April 16, 2010, Cotter states that the alluvial ground water is in "direct <br />hydraulic communication with Ralston Creek." Technical Memo at p. 5; Whetstone <br />Report at pp. 8-13; 8-37; 9-3. In addition, Cotter states the source of uranium and <br />total dissolved solids loading to the creek is from the alluvium and the fill (the waste <br />rock Cotter used to create a pad on which it constructed buildings in the alluvium), <br />and that interaction with ground water in the alluvium and fill has affected water <br />quality in the creek since sumps and water treatment ceased in June 2002. Whetstone <br />Report at pp. 11-9, 11-54 and 55. In its Technical Revision dated June 1, 2010, <br />Cotter has agreed to comply with the Division's corrective action to treat all water <br />that reports to Sump No. 1, initiating such treatment by July 31, 2010.' <br />As to the violations in relation to the mine pool, Cotter admits in its proposed EPP <br />and the Technical Memo that there is a hydrologic connection between the mine pool and <br />the creek. See, e.g., Technical Memo at p. 2 and footnote 1 and Whetstone Report at <br />t Cotter states "[Cotter] recognizes; the importance of taking action for the situation at Ralston Creek. , . <br />Cotter is working with its engineering consultants ... to install a treatment system to commence treatment . <br />.. consistent with Corrective Action 41.").