My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-08-31_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-08-31_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:20:34 PM
Creation date
9/15/2010 11:58:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
8/31/2010
Doc Name
Petition of Cotter Corp. for Reconsideration of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
From
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
To
DRMS
Violation No.
MV2010018
Email Name
DB2
AJW
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.
/
78
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
not rule in the Order on the issue of whether mine dewatering and treatment would not have <br />more than a minor effect upon the approved or proposed Reclamation or Environmental <br />Protection Plan. <br />Mine dewatering and treatment clearly would have more than a minor effect. On behalf <br />of the Division, David Bird testified that Corrective Action No. 2 would be expensive. Tr. of <br />Hearing at 31:4-5. Susan Wyman on behalf of Cotter testified about the difficulty and <br />infeasibility of installing a pump and attempting to pump the water down 500 feet below the <br />Steve Level. Tr. of Hearing at 100:16 to 103:9. Moreover, Randy Whicker of Cotter testified <br />about safety and access issues. Tr. of Hearing at 131:18 to 135:25. Any refurbishment of the <br />mine would take considerable time and resources to implement, would require substantial <br />excavation of wall rocks, and would involve other technical and safety challenges. Cotter <br />Rebuttal at 14-15; Rationale at 7-11: Tr. of Hearing at 135:8-18. <br />V. The Board Should Reconsider the Amount of Civil Penalties It Has Assessed. <br />The Board should reconsider the amount of civil penalties it has assessed because such <br />amount is based on violations linked to the mine pool and, as set forth above, no such violations <br />exist. Civil penalties may be assessed under the Act only where a person "violates any provision <br />of any permit issued under this article ...." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-124(7). Here, the Board <br />has indisputably assessed civil penalties against Cotter for perceived violations involving the <br />mine pool. Order at 9. However, as discussed in section I. above, the mine pool does not <br />provide a basis for finding any violation of the Act or of any permit issued to Cotter under the <br />Act. Under these circumstances, the Board should reconsider the amount of penalties it has <br />ordered. Cotter respectfully submits that such amount should be decreased substantially where, <br />as here, the mine pool provides no basis to assess penalties and Cotter has already timely <br />implemented a water treatment system for the alluvium in accordance with the Order. <br />20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.