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
of the Act, the Order does not reflect facts and analysis that Cotter previously presented on these <br />issues in its briefs, testimony, and technical reports. Such omissions should be corrected in a <br />new decision. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4-105(14)(a) ("Each decision ... shall include a <br />statement of findings and conclusions upon all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion <br />presented by the record") (emphasis added); see also 2 CCR 407-1, Rule 2.8.2(3). Further, the <br />Order is based on findings that are contradicted by the hearing testimony and other evidence in <br />the record. These deficiencies apply to each of the three statutory provisions that the Board <br />found Cotter has violated. <br />(A) No Violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(g). <br />The Board should reconsider the Order because the record expressly contradicts key <br />findings upon which the Board relied to find a violation of section 34-32-116(7)(g). One such <br />finding is that "[t]he mine pool uranium concentration of 35.4 mg/L is a serious adverse impact <br />to the prevailing hydrologic balance (background concentrations 0.0019 mg/L; MW-11, October <br />2009)." Order ¶ 40. This finding is incorrect for several reasons. <br />First, MW-11 is completed above the mine, not in the ore zone, and is therefore not <br />representative of uranium concentrations in the ore zone. Susan A. Wyman, P.E., P.G., <br />Whetstone Associates, Rebuttal to the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Testimony <br />before the Mined Land Reclamation Board and Technical Comments on Draft Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law, and Order Regarding the Schwartzwalder Mine, at 1 (July 30, 2010) <br />("Cotter Rebuttal") (attached hereto as Exh. 1).' Test results from MW-11 do not, therefore, <br />' The Cotter Rebuttal was attached to Cotter's July 30, 2010 comments on the Board's <br />draft findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. Cotter is providing a courtesy copy of its <br />Rebuttal as Exhibit 1 to this petition. <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.